Into the mind of a denier... so you seriously think that your little saying- ya can never tell when it's going to get hot or cold !- should somehow substitute and in fact replace the armies of PhDs and their peer reviewed work.. because....why again?
Once again everyone, all together now, it's not true that scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70s. IT was ONE Newsweek article that spawned this myth. For the record, the original author of that article has gone on record as saaying it's been blown out of proportion and at the time, was never taken as scientific consensus.
The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.- Fred Singer
"The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn't show a warming. Neither does the ocean." - Fred Singer
Yeah Fred Singer isn't a skeptic he's a denier and one of the worst ones at that.
The attempt to portray him as some sort of reasonable doubter is a PR move, initiated by himself, and nothing more.
He's been so dramatically wrong on so many issues where the evidence was incontrovertible and always in the favor of the industry that was paying him, it's hard to conclude that he's a just liar for hire. He's been called out for stating falsehoods so frequently, displayed so little remorse or contrition when caught and about things of such great consequence - the life and death of millions of people- that it's hard not to conclude that he's a textbook sociopath.
The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".
He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.
He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.
Now, on this same inventory list, again, that
the CIA discovered, is another toxin, a fish toxin, and we inventoried that at 3 cubic centimeters, and only 1 milligram of this material
apparently is a lethal dose, indicating it is almost as lethal, at least
weight-wise, as the shellfish toxin. Why was this also overlooked, and
why wasn't the fish toxin destroyed?
Mr. COLBY.
Well, the fact here was that the various materials here
were not destroyed. I believe there is a technical argument about
whether the shellfish toxin is the only one that is directly covered
by the President's order. But obviously, we do not have a need for
the other kinds of toxins, beyond the research into the possibly
defensive uses.
Senator SCHWEIKER.
Well, the President's order, Mr. Colby, is very
clear and specific. It said research for defensive purposes only. To
your knowledge, has any research for defensive purposes been going
on with the fish toxin at CIA, or at any other laboratory?
Mr. COLBY.
No, Senator. This was put on this shelf, and just left
there. It became an old storeroom, and the material was up there and
forgotten.
and later....
are not. In effect, they are.
The CHAIRMAN.
Well, I am informed that 11 grams of shellfish
toxin-on the surface, it seems to be a small quantity-actually represents about a third of the total amount ever produced in the world....
This was 40 years ago. It begs the question- what do they have now?
Now see, that's good news in a sense - no matter how badly we fuck up - chances are we can't wipe out life on earth, earth will live on and in a few million years there'll be some other creature who asks "Why are we here ?" -
Even this is completely correct. Humans have collected and created materials and diseases far in excess in terms of both quantity and concentration of what nature would have ever produced.
If we go, we're leaving these behind for future creatures to have to contend with. The stockpiles we have of nuclear material and rare and very lethal diseases will be waiting in the wings for whatever end product a few millions years of evolution's best efforts can produce.
One day, that sealed , 3 foot thick steel and concrete door on that CDC black site finally gives way and looses on the earth things which no creature evolved to deal with. Ditto our nuclear stockpiles. It's far and away enough to kill everything, every time for eons going forward.
It' s something like the original book the Planet Of The Apes actually, where even if creatures evolve to a fairly sophisticated level, they aren't going to understand what it is and what it can do to them should they open it, topple it, live near it or just be unfortunate enough to cohabitate on a planet with it.
Like it or not, we are now and forever after the caretakers of this earth and all the life that is or will be on it.
This is a lie. We DO know how to solve such problems for the same reason we know how to predict such problems- we do science.
The only part of this problem we don't know how to solve is the denier part.
The extent we can do with our current political technology is to become increasingly centralized to implement and enforce consistent policies. Which is a much bigger nightmare than global warming
This is a distressingly ignorant statement . We, the nations of the world, acted in a coordinated fashion to turn back the VERY highly lethal threat of CFC's which were putting a hole in the ozone.
Partially because we averted this disaster people don't know how serious it was. If left unchecked - which is what industry and today's climate change deniers like Fred Singer:
counseled humanity to do, the the hole in the ozone would have let enough high energy emissions through in the 40-290 nm spectrum to literally disassemble the DNA - which absorbs at 280nm - and proteins - which absorb at 260nm.
Maybe we could have adapted.
The fact that we did this and are continuing to do it means we can act in a coordinated and intelligent way if policies are guided by scientific facts.
Yeah what you're saying would be true if I had in any way advertised myself as or projected myself as an *authority* making a clinical *diagnosis*. But I didn't So you're talking to yourself about now and repeating it again and again doesn't bring it any closer to it being true. .
The basic premise you're pursuing- that the concepts of psychiatry are forbidden to non-professionals even in casual conversation, is just weird.
Hey maybe if you repeat something enough it will become true. Of course, that would only happen if you aren't stupid enough to cut n paste the fact that proves you wrong.
[...]implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder
Yeah that word implies pretty much means what it means.
But apparently , you cant read my post, you can't read your OWN post quoting my post either. Thus we get this from you:
You may try to spin this with claims of citing "facts", or retcon'ing in your mind that you attempted to window-dress your diagnosis with a pseudo-disclaimer such as "it's likely" (which, despite your previous claim, you did no such thing).
Ouch. It has to hurt.
Meanwhile, back in reality the OP did in fact CONFIDENTLY ASSERT that his "little classroom experiment" disproved AGW. Yep , that's pretty much an inflated sense of your own worth with an expectation that you'll be given what others have earned, and it's pretty much staring everyone in the face.
The easiest thing for an employer to do to filter out resumes/applicants is to trust the brand name. It is the same thing that people do in a grocery store when they want to choose a product that is produced by many companies. It is a heuristic to conserve mental energy and a way of life.
And to ease their employers lot, , students should expect to go into debt.
None of which forms an effective rebuttal since I didn't *diagnose* anyone but merely pointed out a fact and presented that fact as an indicator, and not a diagnosis.; so I am specifically not elevating myself to the level of expert.
OTOH , the fact is that the OP wishes his own (lack of ) expertise - which fact is made devastatingly clear when real experts roll in to rebut him MOST effectively- to be taken as rebutting the work of thousands of PhDs. who have spent first 4 years studying the subject matter then another 3-4 getting their PhDs. then more years as postdocs then even more years as researchers researching and subjecting their findings to the rigors of peer reviewed journals.. the fact that the OP thinks HE has "proved them all wrong" with a "simple first year experiment" basically sounds like he expects to be GIVEN what other people EARNED- credibility and authority.
Now amusingly YOU'RE comparing THAT to the public remarking amongst themselves the similarity between THAT OUTRAGEOUS behavior and the published criteria for narcissism in casual conversation. P>These two activities are equivalent in your mind .
Like I said, you rode in here thinking you were going to score some major fucking points and you left having fumed and hissed and said nothing of any truth or value.
Yeah except that the DSM and the descriptions of mental illness are deliberately expressed SO THAT people can use them in their everyday lives to interpret the behavior of extreme personalities they encounter ; it's a part of the mission and social purpose of psychiatry that the basic ideas get widely disseminated because, unlike cancer etc. once the distinguishing characteristics of a personality disorder are described, such as sociopathy, lay people can recognize the syndrome/disease.
In other words, diagnostics are intended to inform the general public and produce an informed general public.
I said literally said "it's likely that...' . So really , you have no point whatsoever.
You came in here thinking you were so clever and were about to dish out a "gotcha!" moment but you're going out glad you elected to post as AC after all.
Yeah except that doing nothing about global warming will assuredly result in the end of civilization and the deaths of billions, which is apparently OK since "doing nothing" is the same as "doing no harm" in your twisted brain.
Reality is what it is. Doing nothing about global warming, denying global warming so society does nothing about it is nothing but a form of mass murder by dint of the results. Stopping that from happening is a form of law enforcement and the proper role of society.
You may think that you've found a great new crime society will be forced to let you get away with since you aren't "doing anything or making anyone do anything". You'd be wrong. That' s a superficial understanding of the relationship between criminals and terrorists and their aims and methods and those of legitimate society and their aims and methods.
Explanatory:
Carbon dioxide reacts with water at standard temperature and pressure to form a weak acid and hydrogen ions (both in solution), adjusting pH *at saturation* from about 7.6-6.0. That it is known yet underreported that the world's oceans are the carbon sink to beat all others, puts lie to the CO2 problem and a simple classroom experiment with distilled water, a straw, sodium hydroxide solution and phenol indicator proves this.
Next time you quote pedestrian facts from first year chemistry in an attempt to refute what the world's PhD chemists are saying about ocean chemistry and the ecology of the ocean, perhaps you should stop and think that having taken a chem 101 course is not really sufficient preparation to take on the world's PhDs in their subject matter and what's more , thinking that it is is and the world should accord your opinion the gravitas and authority of people who have actually EARNED through WORK the right to have that gravitas implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder:
From Wiki
The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological.
Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth.
In children, inflated self-views and grandiose feelings, which are characteristics of narcissism, are part of the normal self-development. Children typically cannot understand the difference between their actual and their ideal self, which causes an unrealistic perception of the self.
After about age 8, views of the self, both positive and negative, begin to develop based on comparisons of peers, and become more realistic.
Two factors that cause self-view to remain unrealistic are dysfunctional interactions with parents that can be either excessive attention or a lack thereof. The child will either compensate for lack of attention or act in terms of unrealistic self-perception.[7]
And as to your point, the oceans only have to become acidic enough to interfere with the normal biology of the animals who evolved to live in it. They don't have to "boil away" or "fail" totally as a carbon sink.
From this we learn that the extremely unlikely event that a slashdot poster with a first year level of understanding in basic chem refuted the collective work of the world's PhDs with "a simple classroom experiment" has not, in fact, occurred.
Remember, these sites and other social media sites are patrolled by agents paid by the oil and gas industry to cast aspersion on anything and everything having to do with global warming. I think we just met one. The post is so malignant, it's worth unpacking in detail.
Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.
Technique one - ad homineum attack on the messenger. A study was done. That study was reported. Attempt to discredit the study by attacking the credibility of the entity doing the reporting. Instead considering the worth of the study itself, the hope is the integrity of the study will be smeared by smearing the entity that reported it.
Technique two- change the topic. We were talking about the effect of global warming on the oceanic food web , now we're going to start talking instead about the BBC and whether they're biased or not.
The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment
Technique three, misrepresent normal and appropriate scientific qualification of results as a license to dismiss the study's findings. The fact is, no single study is definitive. That's normal science. The certainty increases as each successive study is confirmed, amplified, and new studies support the same conclusions using different approaches. Each study considered individually comes with caveats; the picture of reality emerges from an aggregation of such studies. This is called "normal science" and it's how science gets to truth. This study fits into that framework.
Technique four- decontextualize the study from the larger supporting body of related evidence.
Closely related to technique three above, the mass of evidence pointing to the devastating effects of oceanic acidification on the food web is incontrovertible. This study reinforces and elaborates this finding with new evidence. Seen in its proper context, this study's relevance increases because its findings are congruent with other studies showing the same disturbing trend- acidification of the oceans is assaulting the food web in the ocean.
The smallest part of the omitted scientific context:
This is just one of the realistic doomsday scenarios that people need to take seriously- the collapse of food chain in the oceans.
Remember, it doesn't have to be that oceans are completely and totally dead for people to start acting as if they are. It's enough that they no longer provide food or jobs for a lot of people, especially in developing nations. When the oceans are seen to be moving inevitably and inexorably to that condition , then it's as good as real, just like a stock that people understand is going to zero is as good as worthless even when it's price is still positive.
If the really small things that support the fisheries- thing like phytoplankton which support the zooplankton which in turn support start to fail it takes with it the krill, mackerel, sardines, anchovies, tuna then upwards to the fish we eat -and we'll know if it starts to happen- then there will be price-panic food buying with the result that right then, tens of millions start to starve and economies start to collapse.
It doesn't have to be in full effect for the full societal reaction to get going, it just has to be *seen* as going into full effect. That's when the chaos, the insane inflation of food, the rioting, the wars and uncontrollable immigration and nation destabilizing kicks in. That's when the civil wars break out and the uber-terrorism- uniting the entire 3rd and 2nd worlds in a death-lust for the West kicks in.
Do you like your life? Do you like sitting down at your computer and surfing and learning and enjoying life? Would you like to continue in the same vein? Would you like things to generally keep going progressing slowly forward? Would you like your culture and civilization to continue? Are you *conservative* in that large sense of the word? Because right now the "conservatives" in America are the most reactionary, radical literally suicidal and culture-cidal group of cretins ever created.
Perhaps the real conservatives can step forward at this time. The guys who were in the Rod and Gun clubs, the sportsmen who were conservationists, like the WWII vets who started the ski resorts in the Rockies, maybe the people *like that* would like to step forward and reclaim their party and protect the earth from the coke snorter conservatives, the narcissist conservatives, the Aspberger conservatives for whom politics comes down to single issues like taxes or Obamacare or abortion. I'm talking about The Glenn Becks the Sara Palins the Grover Norquists the Ralph Reeds the fucking Christian Right and their one-Jesus-fixes-all-problems fucking form of goddamned mental retardation. I can't even think of one person that fits description of a real conservative in the whole motherfucking Republican Party. Oh, wait. John Huntsmen. OK. One. One motherfucker in the entire fucking party.
The deniers war against reality and taking immediate dramatic action while it still has the chance of being effective and economically viable isn't LIKE WWIII, it IS WWIII. It IS the reason that the next wave of tens of millions of people are going die and worse, it's a foreseable, preventable well-predicted event.
It's go time, Mr. President. It's waaaayyy past time to stop trying to diddle Congress's clit just right on this topic. It's time for the Executive to unilaterally declare global warming to be an urgent matter of national security and Executive Action to initiated unilaterally towards alternative fuels, towards conservation, towards binding treaties and against those voices in our society who have declared themselves to be terrorists determined to set off the global warming bomb and kill billions. There is nothing more to talk about , it's time for action- Executive Action. It's time to silence, disable, undermine, discredit, and dismantle those individuals and organizations who are sewing the seeds of doubt. Their careers need to be ended as ignominiously as possible and failing that their voices need to be silenced as discretely as possible. This is war. This is what war is. This is wha
Actually, I would say that a society ruled by "empathy" would quickly collapse, as the people in charge would be unable to make decisions based on an objective cost/benefit analysis, but instead would be paralyzed by emotional concerns.
Wrong. Exactly precisely 180 degrees wrong. It;s people who earnestly care about the outcomes for OTHER people that assiduously work through cost-benefit analysis and campaign for whatever result that analysis shows them is the best outcome.
What you're describing is someone with no analytic capacity at all, no ability to go where the data leads because they're so besotted with emotion they can't think straight.
Juxtaposing that imaginary personality against a psychopath and presenting that juxtaposition as some kind of forced choice between two alternatives is bunk. Both are defective personality types. The real difference is, the psychopath actually exists, the weepy-hearted paralysis case is so far as I know just a hypothetical construct aka strawman.
When a cost-benefit analysis is done, it's important to consider what COUNTS as the benefit- is the benefit being reckoned as the aggregate well being of other humans or YOUR paycheck. What we have no in US health care- since you brought up putting a dollar value to human life- is corporations doing a cost benefit analysis which counts their executive's paychecks as the benefit to be maximized and other people's health as a cost to be minimized.
In fact it was the Tea Party who whined and moaned about some imaginary government agency deciding whether or not to give treatment based on cost effectiveness. So there are your achy-breaky hearts and it's the EU cost-benefit analysis health care system who has better outcomes for diseases amenable to treatment:
By definition, INTJs do not want power. They want results and efficiency.
And the problem here is what again?
If they take power, they try to get out from under it as soon as they can. But do you really want to replace the psychopaths with masterminds? The only group whose personality type is usually preceded by the adjective "evil?" Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Uh. psychopaths ARE the DEFINITION of evil. In fact, without psychopaths, there would not be evil as we know it. When people say "evil mastermind" what they really mean is no "efficiency expert" what they really mean is "ambitous psychopath executing his/her plan".
This is one of the most important ideas we'll see in our lifetimes, and one of the best.
Consider the effect on your career if the psychopath in the next cubicle is no longer making your life a living hell. Consider the amount of law enforcement resources society will save if the psychopaths are prevented from ascending the corporate hierarchy. Consider the personal destruction attributable to this 1-3% of the population and that it could be largely mitigated using this technology.
This kind of ability along with the ability to tell with 100% certainty when someone is lying by looking at their involuntary brain activity are a terrific force for making society a more humane place.
I just know/.'ers will bring up some idea like "psychopaths may be bad people but they make a great CEX. " Wrong. They make bad decisions at every level and what's more can't be trusted with anything especially the well being of a corporation. The CIA won't have them and screens heavily for them and this is based on their past experience. You can't trust them- full stop.
You may think that you're willing to put up with the careers and lives they ruin on their way to the top-because of the benefit the a psychopaths's "dynamic personality" and "leadership skills" bring to the table, but you'd be wrong. The collective LOSS of highly qualified candidates who would otherwise be contributing to the corporation FAR exceeds anything the psychopath is going to bring. Yes, that includes people like Steve Jobs. The truth about Jobs is he shameless stole everyone's ideas around him and claimed them as his own, often in within a minute of having heard the idea and in a room full of people who were sitting there watching him do it. Their own career trajectory constrained them from mentioning the obvious- "uh Steve, that's what Helen just said....".
It's to the point where I just take it as true until proven otherwise that people who aggressively agitate for the myth of the "sole genius inventor" and especially those who prop that myth up against the efforts of a dynamic collective of experts are themselves somewhat psychopathic and are basically looking to legitimize the fantasy narrative they would see applied to themselves. This is especially true of the whole Ayn Rand type myth of the "superman" or "master of the universe " or "job creator" or whatever name is being bandied around these days. Ayn Rand was as good an example of the psychopathic - sociopathic personality type as you're likely to find and her philosophy reads like the textbook definition of anti-social personality disorder.
If that was the case then the environmentalists wouldn't oppose going all nuclear immediately.
Did you Google "environmentalists support nuclear power to fight climate change" before you wrote this or is it just a Limbaugh-derived free floating assumption in your head that you carry around and whip out when it suits you?
Because if you had you'd find that there environmentalists who think nuclear is the way to go just for this reason.
But even more to the point it's not "nuclear vs coal" - that's a false dichotomy created by the right wing.
It seems to me that in this day and age, Googling to disconfirm your assumption- that is, actively looking for disconfirmatory evidence for your assumption- is the minimum amount of due diligence we can now expect from anyone who wants to be taken seriously.
Princeton's Wedges plan gets us to where we need to be using not a silver bullet "it's all going to be THIS from now on" approach but rather a mix of conservation, alternative energy, conventional energy including coal, gas and nuclear energy.
2. Solar system changes. Significant change is happening on all 9 planets, to their climates and magnetic signatures. People don't like to talk about this, and a lot of work has been put into twisting the data. It's all swamp gas, you see. The electric nature of the solar system, once one begins to understand this, becomes a key aspect in explaining all of this change. (Why is the heliosphere of the sun millions of time hotter than it is closer to the surface? The answer to that cannot be explained through conventional physics. But it can be explained when electrical properties are taken into account.)
You're literally insane. No, I mean.. you're insane.
OK it's a very very good thing that scientists have resisted the urge to lie to the American public. If they did that, if they gave into that, then they'd be forever on the hook to prevent it from being discovered- an impossible task. When it was discovered then every utterance they make would be dismissed henceforward. The scientific community is doing the part of its job it and only it can do they ONLY way it can and should be done- speaking the truth, and if you happen to live in Virginia and Ken Cucinelli is your State prosecutor, speaking the truth to a sociopath in power. .
There's another part of the being a scientist job that they need to do better at and that's educating the public. I went to school with a hard science major and I know how little scientists actually like teaching , at least, most of them. They want to do research and everything else is a nuisance to them.
They need to get over it. They need to come out fo their labs and the safe world they know and get down in the fucking mud with pigs on the other side. Everyone's life depends on them taking themselves out of their comfort zone and throwing down the way Michael Mann has done.
But lie? Only if your goal is to lose in the biggest way possible. There is no substitute, nothing with the equivalent power of knowing and telling the truth . The super-weapon in this fight, the atomic bomb that we and only we have is the truth. If we give that up, if in a moment of weakness or panic we give that up and try on the magic ring of lying, of manipulating, of presenting opinion as fact, then we've given up the only thing that can really save us. Here's reality- scientists are telling the truth about what the near future holds. Sean Hannity at. al. are a psychopathic liars who are flat-out intellectually incapable of understanding the technical issues which define climate change and instead substitute their preferred "narrative" and the net effect of which will be to point-blank murder your kids via ecological collapse.
Ask Nate Silver how powerful the truth is and ask the subhuman scum at Unskewedpolls :
what you get when you try to force reality to conform to your preferred masturbation fantasy.
Or better yet ask Romney what good lying to yourself is in;the end.
The opposition are fantasists. They live in a psychological world in which there simply IS no distinction between what makes them feel good and what they take as reality. Look at their position on virtually any issue and you see the same phenomena. They have none of what psychologists call "reality testing". Societies on the losing end of history all share this characteristic.
We have our reputation as truth tellers intact. That is everything because it's the INVARIANT truth tellers, whoever never stooped to lying and therefore preserved the trust of society who will be calling the shots- completely unopposed- presently. If that seems like an unlikely event then stay tuned. The summer of world-wide crop failures and runaway food prices hasn't exploded the fantasists' bunker yet, but it will, because now there's no escaping it anymore.
Yes the political picture looks bleak but events have a way of changing things overnight, like *that*.
When those events happen, as they will, as the data tells us they have to, we can only step forward to lead if our reputation is unquestioned.
Is this really the best we can do? If you have a financial and career interest in some topic then that fact renders you literally incapable of processing reality in any meaningful way. He's not too stupid to understand the issue, but the fact that his department makes money off of a broken system, and the bigger the department the bigger the paycheck of the guy who heads it, is all that matters. It's disgusting, sure but even more, it's depressing. One snort of the money and power coke up their noses and everything else goes right out the window.
Slashdot Mirror
Into the mind of a denier... so you seriously think that your little saying- ya can never tell when it's going to get hot or cold !- should somehow substitute and in fact replace the armies of PhDs and their peer reviewed work.. because ....why again?
Once again everyone, all together now, it's not true that scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70s. IT was ONE Newsweek article that spawned this myth. For the record, the original author of that article has gone on record as saaying it's been blown out of proportion and at the time, was never taken as scientific consensus.
The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.- Fred Singer
"The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn't show a warming. Neither does the ocean." - Fred Singer
Yeah Fred Singer isn't a skeptic he's a denier and one of the worst ones at that.
The attempt to portray him as some sort of reasonable doubter is a PR move, initiated by himself, and nothing more.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/singer-criticises-deniers.html
He's been so dramatically wrong on so many issues where the evidence was incontrovertible and always in the favor of the industry that was paying him, it's hard to conclude that he's a just liar for hire. He's been called out for stating falsehoods so frequently, displayed so little remorse or contrition when caught and about things of such great consequence - the life and death of millions of people- that it's hard not to conclude that he's a textbook sociopath.
http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".
He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.
He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.
He's denied human caused climate change.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/01/20/202297/unstoppable-disinformation-every-15-minutes-from-fred-singer/
http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
and so on ad naseum...
The word "skeptic" implies some rational basis for doubt,
He's a denier.
From intelligence.senate.gov :
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs94th/94intelligence_activities_I.pdf
Senator SCHWEIKER.
Now, on this same inventory list, again, that the CIA discovered, is another toxin, a fish toxin, and we inventoried that at 3 cubic centimeters, and only 1 milligram of this material apparently is a lethal dose, indicating it is almost as lethal, at least weight-wise, as the shellfish toxin. Why was this also overlooked, and why wasn't the fish toxin destroyed?
Mr. COLBY.
Well, the fact here was that the various materials here were not destroyed. I believe there is a technical argument about whether the shellfish toxin is the only one that is directly covered by the President's order. But obviously, we do not have a need for the other kinds of toxins, beyond the research into the possibly defensive uses.
Senator SCHWEIKER.
Well, the President's order, Mr. Colby, is very clear and specific. It said research for defensive purposes only. To your knowledge, has any research for defensive purposes been going on with the fish toxin at CIA, or at any other laboratory?
Mr. COLBY.
No, Senator. This was put on this shelf, and just left there. It became an old storeroom, and the material was up there and forgotten.
and later....
are not. In effect, they are. The CHAIRMAN.
Well, I am informed that 11 grams of shellfish toxin-on the surface, it seems to be a small quantity-actually represents about a third of the total amount ever produced in the world. ...
This was 40 years ago. It begs the question- what do they have now?
That should have read "Even this is NOT completely correct.... "
Now see, that's good news in a sense - no matter how badly we fuck up - chances are we can't wipe out life on earth, earth will live on and in a few million years there'll be some other creature who asks "Why are we here ?" -
Even this is completely correct. Humans have collected and created materials and diseases far in excess in terms of both quantity and concentration of what nature would have ever produced.
If we go, we're leaving these behind for future creatures to have to contend with. The stockpiles we have of nuclear material and rare and very lethal diseases will be waiting in the wings for whatever end product a few millions years of evolution's best efforts can produce.
One day, that sealed , 3 foot thick steel and concrete door on that CDC black site finally gives way and looses on the earth things which no creature evolved to deal with. Ditto our nuclear stockpiles. It's far and away enough to kill everything, every time for eons going forward.
It' s something like the original book the Planet Of The Apes actually, where even if creatures evolve to a fairly sophisticated level, they aren't going to understand what it is and what it can do to them should they open it, topple it, live near it or just be unfortunate enough to cohabitate on a planet with it.
Like it or not, we are now and forever after the caretakers of this earth and all the life that is or will be on it.
We don't know how to solve such problems.
This is a lie. We DO know how to solve such problems for the same reason we know how to predict such problems- we do science.
The only part of this problem we don't know how to solve is the denier part.
The extent we can do with our current political technology is to become increasingly centralized to implement and enforce consistent policies. Which is a much bigger nightmare than global warming
This is a distressingly ignorant statement . We, the nations of the world, acted in a coordinated fashion to turn back the VERY highly lethal threat of CFC's which were putting a hole in the ozone.
Partially because we averted this disaster people don't know how serious it was. If left unchecked - which is what industry and today's climate change deniers like Fred Singer:
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp
counseled humanity to do, the the hole in the ozone would have let enough high energy emissions through in the 40-290 nm spectrum to literally disassemble the DNA - which absorbs at 280nm - and proteins - which absorb at 260nm.
Maybe we could have adapted.
The fact that we did this and are continuing to do it means we can act in a coordinated and intelligent way if policies are guided by scientific facts.
Yeah what you're saying would be true if I had in any way advertised myself as or projected myself as an *authority* making a clinical *diagnosis*. But I didn't So you're talking to yourself about now and repeating it again and again doesn't bring it any closer to it being true. .
The basic premise you're pursuing- that the concepts of psychiatry are forbidden to non-professionals even in casual conversation, is just weird.
Not unlike yourself.
[...]implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder
Yeah that word implies pretty much means what it means.
But apparently , you cant read my post, you can't read your OWN post quoting my post either. Thus we get this from you:
You may try to spin this with claims of citing "facts", or retcon'ing in your mind that you attempted to window-dress your diagnosis with a pseudo-disclaimer such as "it's likely" (which, despite your previous claim, you did no such thing).
Ouch. It has to hurt.
Meanwhile, back in reality the OP did in fact CONFIDENTLY ASSERT that his "little classroom experiment" disproved AGW. Yep , that's pretty much an inflated sense of your own worth with an expectation that you'll be given what others have earned, and it's pretty much staring everyone in the face.
The easiest thing for an employer to do to filter out resumes/applicants is to trust the brand name. It is the same thing that people do in a grocery store when they want to choose a product that is produced by many companies. It is a heuristic to conserve mental energy and a way of life.
And to ease their employers lot, , students should expect to go into debt.
None of which forms an effective rebuttal since I didn't *diagnose* anyone but merely pointed out a fact and presented that fact as an indicator, and not a diagnosis.; so I am specifically not elevating myself to the level of expert.
OTOH , the fact is that the OP wishes his own (lack of ) expertise - which fact is made devastatingly clear when real experts roll in to rebut him MOST effectively- to be taken as rebutting the work of thousands of PhDs. who have spent first 4 years studying the subject matter then another 3-4 getting their PhDs. then more years as postdocs then even more years as researchers researching and subjecting their findings to the rigors of peer reviewed journals.. the fact that the OP thinks HE has "proved them all wrong" with a "simple first year experiment" basically sounds like he expects to be GIVEN what other people EARNED- credibility and authority.
Now amusingly YOU'RE comparing THAT to the public remarking amongst themselves the similarity between THAT OUTRAGEOUS behavior and the published criteria for narcissism in casual conversation. P>These two activities are equivalent in your mind .
Like I said, you rode in here thinking you were going to score some major fucking points and you left having fumed and hissed and said nothing of any truth or value.
In other words, diagnostics are intended to inform the general public and produce an informed general public.
I said literally said "it's likely that...' . So really , you have no point whatsoever.
You came in here thinking you were so clever and were about to dish out a "gotcha!" moment but you're going out glad you elected to post as AC after all.
Thanks for trying.
Yeah except that doing nothing about global warming will assuredly result in the end of civilization and the deaths of billions, which is apparently OK since "doing nothing" is the same as "doing no harm" in your twisted brain.
Reality is what it is. Doing nothing about global warming, denying global warming so society does nothing about it is nothing but a form of mass murder by dint of the results. Stopping that from happening is a form of law enforcement and the proper role of society.
You may think that you've found a great new crime society will be forced to let you get away with since you aren't "doing anything or making anyone do anything". You'd be wrong. That' s a superficial understanding of the relationship between criminals and terrorists and their aims and methods and those of legitimate society and their aims and methods.
Denier = terrorist.
Quoted from Bush II, intended ironically.
Explanatory: Carbon dioxide reacts with water at standard temperature and pressure to form a weak acid and hydrogen ions (both in solution), adjusting pH *at saturation* from about 7.6-6.0. That it is known yet underreported that the world's oceans are the carbon sink to beat all others, puts lie to the CO2 problem and a simple classroom experiment with distilled water, a straw, sodium hydroxide solution and phenol indicator proves this.
Next time you quote pedestrian facts from first year chemistry in an attempt to refute what the world's PhD chemists are saying about ocean chemistry and the ecology of the ocean, perhaps you should stop and think that having taken a chem 101 course is not really sufficient preparation to take on the world's PhDs in their subject matter and what's more , thinking that it is is and the world should accord your opinion the gravitas and authority of people who have actually EARNED through WORK the right to have that gravitas implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder:
From Wiki
The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological.
Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth.
In children, inflated self-views and grandiose feelings, which are characteristics of narcissism, are part of the normal self-development. Children typically cannot understand the difference between their actual and their ideal self, which causes an unrealistic perception of the self.
After about age 8, views of the self, both positive and negative, begin to develop based on comparisons of peers, and become more realistic.
Two factors that cause self-view to remain unrealistic are dysfunctional interactions with parents that can be either excessive attention or a lack thereof. The child will either compensate for lack of attention or act in terms of unrealistic self-perception.[7]
And as to your point, the oceans only have to become acidic enough to interfere with the normal biology of the animals who evolved to live in it. They don't have to "boil away" or "fail" totally as a carbon sink.
From this we learn that the extremely unlikely event that a slashdot poster with a first year level of understanding in basic chem refuted the collective work of the world's PhDs with "a simple classroom experiment" has not, in fact, occurred.
Remember, this is the BBC, who took a corporate decision in 2006 to pursue an alarmist reporting stance.
Technique one - ad homineum attack on the messenger. A study was done. That study was reported. Attempt to discredit the study by attacking the credibility of the entity doing the reporting. Instead considering the worth of the study itself, the hope is the integrity of the study will be smeared by smearing the entity that reported it.
Technique two- change the topic. We were talking about the effect of global warming on the oceanic food web , now we're going to start talking instead about the BBC and whether they're biased or not.
The original paper says that this is only a pilot study, and that it cannot definitely point to any disadvantage to the animals - 'they MAY suffer increased predation' is a typical comment
Technique three, misrepresent normal and appropriate scientific qualification of results as a license to dismiss the study's findings. The fact is, no single study is definitive. That's normal science. The certainty increases as each successive study is confirmed, amplified, and new studies support the same conclusions using different approaches. Each study considered individually comes with caveats; the picture of reality emerges from an aggregation of such studies. This is called "normal science" and it's how science gets to truth. This study fits into that framework.
Technique four- decontextualize the study from the larger supporting body of related evidence. Closely related to technique three above, the mass of evidence pointing to the devastating effects of oceanic acidification on the food web is incontrovertible. This study reinforces and elaborates this finding with new evidence. Seen in its proper context, this study's relevance increases because its findings are congruent with other studies showing the same disturbing trend- acidification of the oceans is assaulting the food web in the ocean.
The smallest part of the omitted scientific context:
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/opinion/acid-test-for-oceans-and-marine-life.html?_r=0
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/
http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/ocean-acidification/learn-act/effects-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-species-ecosystems
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/06/local/la-me-acidic-oceans-20121007
http://www.examiner.com/article/lethal-carbon-dioxide-and-ocean-acidification-threaten-marine-life
This is just one of the realistic doomsday scenarios that people need to take seriously- the collapse of food chain in the oceans.
Remember, it doesn't have to be that oceans are completely and totally dead for people to start acting as if they are. It's enough that they no longer provide food or jobs for a lot of people, especially in developing nations. When the oceans are seen to be moving inevitably and inexorably to that condition , then it's as good as real, just like a stock that people understand is going to zero is as good as worthless even when it's price is still positive.
If the really small things that support the fisheries- thing like phytoplankton which support the zooplankton which in turn support start to fail it takes with it the krill, mackerel, sardines, anchovies, tuna then upwards to the fish we eat -and we'll know if it starts to happen- then there will be price-panic food buying with the result that right then, tens of millions start to starve and economies start to collapse.
It doesn't have to be in full effect for the full societal reaction to get going, it just has to be *seen* as going into full effect. That's when the chaos, the insane inflation of food, the rioting, the wars and uncontrollable immigration and nation destabilizing kicks in. That's when the civil wars break out and the uber-terrorism- uniting the entire 3rd and 2nd worlds in a death-lust for the West kicks in.
Do you like your life? Do you like sitting down at your computer and surfing and learning and enjoying life? Would you like to continue in the same vein? Would you like things to generally keep going progressing slowly forward? Would you like your culture and civilization to continue? Are you *conservative* in that large sense of the word? Because right now the "conservatives" in America are the most reactionary, radical literally suicidal and culture-cidal group of cretins ever created.
Perhaps the real conservatives can step forward at this time. The guys who were in the Rod and Gun clubs, the sportsmen who were conservationists, like the WWII vets who started the ski resorts in the Rockies, maybe the people *like that* would like to step forward and reclaim their party and protect the earth from the coke snorter conservatives, the narcissist conservatives, the Aspberger conservatives for whom politics comes down to single issues like taxes or Obamacare or abortion. I'm talking about The Glenn Becks the Sara Palins the Grover Norquists the Ralph Reeds the fucking Christian Right and their one-Jesus-fixes-all-problems fucking form of goddamned mental retardation. I can't even think of one person that fits description of a real conservative in the whole motherfucking Republican Party. Oh, wait. John Huntsmen. OK. One. One motherfucker in the entire fucking party.
The deniers war against reality and taking immediate dramatic action while it still has the chance of being effective and economically viable isn't LIKE WWIII, it IS WWIII. It IS the reason that the next wave of tens of millions of people are going die and worse, it's a foreseable, preventable well-predicted event.
It's go time, Mr. President. It's waaaayyy past time to stop trying to diddle Congress's clit just right on this topic. It's time for the Executive to unilaterally declare global warming to be an urgent matter of national security and Executive Action to initiated unilaterally towards alternative fuels, towards conservation, towards binding treaties and against those voices in our society who have declared themselves to be terrorists determined to set off the global warming bomb and kill billions. There is nothing more to talk about , it's time for action- Executive Action. It's time to silence, disable, undermine, discredit, and dismantle those individuals and organizations who are sewing the seeds of doubt. Their careers need to be ended as ignominiously as possible and failing that their voices need to be silenced as discretely as possible. This is war. This is what war is. This is wha
Actually, I would say that a society ruled by "empathy" would quickly collapse, as the people in charge would be unable to make decisions based on an objective cost/benefit analysis, but instead would be paralyzed by emotional concerns.
Wrong. Exactly precisely 180 degrees wrong. It;s people who earnestly care about the outcomes for OTHER people that assiduously work through cost-benefit analysis and campaign for whatever result that analysis shows them is the best outcome.
What you're describing is someone with no analytic capacity at all, no ability to go where the data leads because they're so besotted with emotion they can't think straight.
Juxtaposing that imaginary personality against a psychopath and presenting that juxtaposition as some kind of forced choice between two alternatives is bunk. Both are defective personality types. The real difference is, the psychopath actually exists, the weepy-hearted paralysis case is so far as I know just a hypothetical construct aka strawman.
When a cost-benefit analysis is done, it's important to consider what COUNTS as the benefit- is the benefit being reckoned as the aggregate well being of other humans or YOUR paycheck. What we have no in US health care- since you brought up putting a dollar value to human life- is corporations doing a cost benefit analysis which counts their executive's paychecks as the benefit to be maximized and other people's health as a cost to be minimized.
In fact it was the Tea Party who whined and moaned about some imaginary government agency deciding whether or not to give treatment based on cost effectiveness. So there are your achy-breaky hearts and it's the EU cost-benefit analysis health care system who has better outcomes for diseases amenable to treatment:
By definition, INTJs do not want power. They want results and efficiency.
And the problem here is what again?
If they take power, they try to get out from under it as soon as they can. But do you really want to replace the psychopaths with masterminds? The only group whose personality type is usually preceded by the adjective "evil?" Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Uh. psychopaths ARE the DEFINITION of evil. In fact, without psychopaths, there would not be evil as we know it. When people say "evil mastermind" what they really mean is no "efficiency expert" what they really mean is "ambitous psychopath executing his /her plan".
This is one of the most important ideas we'll see in our lifetimes, and one of the best.
Consider the effect on your career if the psychopath in the next cubicle is no longer making your life a living hell. Consider the amount of law enforcement resources society will save if the psychopaths are prevented from ascending the corporate hierarchy. Consider the personal destruction attributable to this 1-3% of the population and that it could be largely mitigated using this technology.
This kind of ability along with the ability to tell with 100% certainty when someone is lying by looking at their involuntary brain activity are a terrific force for making society a more humane place.
I just know /.'ers will bring up some idea like "psychopaths may be bad people but they make a great CEX. " Wrong. They make bad decisions at every level and what's more can't be trusted with anything especially the well being of a corporation. The CIA won't have them and screens heavily for them and this is based on their past experience. You can't trust them- full stop.
You may think that you're willing to put up with the careers and lives they ruin on their way to the top-because of the benefit the a psychopaths's "dynamic personality" and "leadership skills" bring to the table, but you'd be wrong. The collective LOSS of highly qualified candidates who would otherwise be contributing to the corporation FAR exceeds anything the psychopath is going to bring. Yes, that includes people like Steve Jobs. The truth about Jobs is he shameless stole everyone's ideas around him and claimed them as his own, often in within a minute of having heard the idea and in a room full of people who were sitting there watching him do it. Their own career trajectory constrained them from mentioning the obvious- "uh Steve, that's what Helen just said....".
It's to the point where I just take it as true until proven otherwise that people who aggressively agitate for the myth of the "sole genius inventor" and especially those who prop that myth up against the efforts of a dynamic collective of experts are themselves somewhat psychopathic and are basically looking to legitimize the fantasy narrative they would see applied to themselves. This is especially true of the whole Ayn Rand type myth of the "superman" or "master of the universe " or "job creator" or whatever name is being bandied around these days. Ayn Rand was as good an example of the psychopathic - sociopathic personality type as you're likely to find and her philosophy reads like the textbook definition of anti-social personality disorder.
If that was the case then the environmentalists wouldn't oppose going all nuclear immediately.
Did you Google "environmentalists support nuclear power to fight climate change" before you wrote this or is it just a Limbaugh-derived free floating assumption in your head that you carry around and whip out when it suits you?
Because if you had you'd find that there environmentalists who think nuclear is the way to go just for this reason.
But even more to the point it's not "nuclear vs coal" - that's a false dichotomy created by the right wing.
It seems to me that in this day and age, Googling to disconfirm your assumption- that is, actively looking for disconfirmatory evidence for your assumption- is the minimum amount of due diligence we can now expect from anyone who wants to be taken seriously.
Princeton's Wedges plan gets us to where we need to be using not a silver bullet "it's all going to be THIS from now on" approach but rather a mix of conservation, alternative energy, conventional energy including coal, gas and nuclear energy.
Google it.
2. Solar system changes. Significant change is happening on all 9 planets, to their climates and magnetic signatures. People don't like to talk about this, and a lot of work has been put into twisting the data. It's all swamp gas, you see. The electric nature of the solar system, once one begins to understand this, becomes a key aspect in explaining all of this change. (Why is the heliosphere of the sun millions of time hotter than it is closer to the surface? The answer to that cannot be explained through conventional physics. But it can be explained when electrical properties are taken into account.)
You're literally insane. No, I mean .. you're insane.
OK it's a very very good thing that scientists have resisted the urge to lie to the American public. If they did that, if they gave into that, then they'd be forever on the hook to prevent it from being discovered- an impossible task. When it was discovered then every utterance they make would be dismissed henceforward. The scientific community is doing the part of its job it and only it can do they ONLY way it can and should be done- speaking the truth, and if you happen to live in Virginia and Ken Cucinelli is your State prosecutor, speaking the truth to a sociopath in power. .
There's another part of the being a scientist job that they need to do better at and that's educating the public. I went to school with a hard science major and I know how little scientists actually like teaching , at least, most of them. They want to do research and everything else is a nuisance to them.
They need to get over it. They need to come out fo their labs and the safe world they know and get down in the fucking mud with pigs on the other side. Everyone's life depends on them taking themselves out of their comfort zone and throwing down the way Michael Mann has done.
But lie? Only if your goal is to lose in the biggest way possible. There is no substitute, nothing with the equivalent power of knowing and telling the truth . The super-weapon in this fight, the atomic bomb that we and only we have is the truth. If we give that up, if in a moment of weakness or panic we give that up and try on the magic ring of lying, of manipulating, of presenting opinion as fact, then we've given up the only thing that can really save us. Here's reality- scientists are telling the truth about what the near future holds. Sean Hannity at. al. are a psychopathic liars who are flat-out intellectually incapable of understanding the technical issues which define climate change and instead substitute their preferred "narrative" and the net effect of which will be to point-blank murder your kids via ecological collapse.
Ask Nate Silver how powerful the truth is and ask the subhuman scum at Unskewedpolls :
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/unskewed-polls-wrong.php
what you get when you try to force reality to conform to your preferred masturbation fantasy. Or better yet ask Romney what good lying to yourself is in ;the end.
The opposition are fantasists. They live in a psychological world in which there simply IS no distinction between what makes them feel good and what they take as reality. Look at their position on virtually any issue and you see the same phenomena. They have none of what psychologists call "reality testing". Societies on the losing end of history all share this characteristic.
We have our reputation as truth tellers intact. That is everything because it's the INVARIANT truth tellers, whoever never stooped to lying and therefore preserved the trust of society who will be calling the shots- completely unopposed- presently. If that seems like an unlikely event then stay tuned. The summer of world-wide crop failures and runaway food prices hasn't exploded the fantasists' bunker yet, but it will, because now there's no escaping it anymore.
Yes the political picture looks bleak but events have a way of changing things overnight, like *that*.
When those events happen, as they will, as the data tells us they have to, we can only step forward to lead if our reputation is unquestioned.
Is this really the best we can do? If you have a financial and career interest in some topic then that fact renders you literally incapable of processing reality in any meaningful way. He's not too stupid to understand the issue, but the fact that his department makes money off of a broken system, and the bigger the department the bigger the paycheck of the guy who heads it, is all that matters. It's disgusting, sure but even more, it's depressing. One snort of the money and power coke up their noses and everything else goes right out the window.