I think the problem is the proliferation of well funded conservative think tanks (CTTs), with no other agenda than shaping the public discourse, and project their own intellectual dishonesty onto their political opponents. So it makes perfect sense that some people think that there's some sort of liberal conspiracy to bring back socialism, when in fact, most liberals couldn't care less about socialism.
There are liberal think tank, however, they are mostly concerned with environmentalism and social justice. As such, they don't get a pinch of the funding as CTTs.
My argument against AGW "science" is that it is not science for the reason that it makes no attempt to connect the models to reality. That is an argument, and the argument that I made. So I have not and do not claim that I don't have to make any argument against it.
I have made my argument, and you have yet to refute it.
You have not made an argument at all, but merely asserted that extant science does not meet your personal standards of epistemology - a term of which I suspect you know next to nothing.
Found the article here. 928 peer reviewed articles for AGW, and zero against.
zero is ten less than ten.
There ain't no skeptics who actually engage in the scientific process through peer review journals. Instead they concentrate on the media, and policy makers, in the hope of, and I quote a leeked memo:
Two bald assertions. If you would like to back them up with evidence, feel free.
rotfl! I already did. It's in my last post. Something about peer review by scientists who understand the philosophy of science and epistemology. What you got? Bald ass assertions, that's what.
It is absurd. That's why I didn't make such a statement.
Oh but you did:
I don't have to be skeptical of the AGW - there are no concepts of which to be skeptical.
So are you changing your story to there being science but that that science has not concepts? Whatever dude.
I would, however, say I fit into the category I identified in my last post.
Not true, you fit into the category of not understanding what climate scientists are actually talking about, and using back-handed methods to avoid actually understanding what they're actually talking about. That's exactly where you are.
because....
I can't even get to that point, because there are no concepts to understand. Just models with equations and variables. What those variables represent in reality - if anything - has not been determined.
That is simply not true.
No, I did not suggest that. You're presuming there is "science" - I'm saying there isn't any, not yet at least.
And neither is that.
There is real climate science out there, published in respectable journals (such as nature), reviewed by real scientists, including some who understand the philosophy of science and epistemology.
Stating that you don't have to make an argument against AGW science, because there's no science to argue about is *ABSURD*
Okay, I replace "expert in the literature", with "understanding the concepts discussed in the literature". Equivocate away, but my point still stands.
It's true that consensus doesn't imply a connection to reality in a strict sense - think IQ testing in the US in the era of eugenics. But the science isn't wrong simply because scientific consensus does not strickly imply a connection to reality, as you surreptitiously suggest.
If you have an argument against the scientific consensus, then make it. Perhaps you really *do* know better. Prove if to the world. Perhaps you'll win a noble prize, and save humanity from itself.
Nobody has yet made a single cogent argument against AGW, that stands up to even modest scrutiny. Most of the skeptics arguments are absolute meretricious junk. That's because they come from a small cabal of conservative think tanks, who are *not* interested in honest skeptisim, or further developing an accurate perception of climate on planet Earth.
So if my dichotomy is truly false, then where do you fit into the big picture?
I am somewhat familiar with the literature. The few actually intelligent skeptics out there aren't actually scientists, but businessmen and economists.
This is simple to prove. Try to find 10 articles from the skeptic side, that meet the standards necessary to be published in a journal. (Hint, you can't). Of the paltry number of articles that you do find, look at the field of expertise of the submitters.
I could point out the flaws in your claims, but doubt it's possible to get anything through an impenetrable schema.
However...
All I will ask of YOU is too do the research behind the science of climate change and draw your own conclusions, before you are sway by ANY mass public opinion.
I've done the research myself. Both the science, and the political stall tactics. You have unwittingly become the pawn of well-paid industry prostitutes.
Science does not go hand-in-hand with majority opinion - neither does science require consensus, nor does consensus imply any connection to reality.
Nice try. Are you an expert on the literature? Or are you one more of the uniformed masses, and using a back-handed insult to discredit a great preponderance of scientific work without ever bothering to actually understand what that work is.
Strangely enough, I am still convinced that the evidence behind the causes and effects of global warming is much less than watertight.
There is, however, consensus in the scientific community. Getting all those egos to agree on something isn't easy. All the professional skeptics are from other disciplines, such as economics. Go figure.
For one thing, there is abviously no chance to have a double blind experiment, since we only have one earth.
Double-bind experiment, wtf? Are you afraid that there may be a placebo effect.
The EPA has squashed some internal opinions that went against the common belief, as has been reported on Slashdot
It's here. So simple to find (google for EPA site:slashdot.org). If you actually look into what was happening, you'll find that the EPAs actions were more than justified. The quashed report did not meet the standards necessary for a university paper, and was full of omissions and errors. If there was any veracity to their report, then they would have fixed the errors and resubmitted. There report was, however, hopeless.
I am also concerned about the amount of public money being thrown about.
Me too. Particularly by special interest groups whose goal is to make people think that there is some doubt over the issue. Marketing in the modern age is a powerful force.
As far as throwing good money at unrealistic power alternatives, I also agree. However, that's a political problem. For example, it seems like the US will never stop subsidising corn production, and hence the whole corn-ethonol mess. Perhaps I feel it would be more constructive to attack these problems instead of denying AGW.
The science is settled - it has been for a long time. We know it's happening, and that humans caused it.
Let's hope the political debate is stifled until some meaningful consensus can be reached
Here, here. The debate is purely political. There is science on one side, and a bunch of marketing firms employed by special interest groups on the other side. The truth is being lost because that's what marketing firms do. Somewhat ironically, they are scientific about sowing discord.
We know there has been natural global cooling - ice ages and the like, so it would make complete sense for there to have been natural global warming at some point too.
Just because the climate has natural cycles, doesn't mean that human being can't interfere. And the *evidence* is that we have.
We also know in the UK the romans (circa 100BC) grew grapes almost up to the scottish borders, something not possible today because it's too cold.
Note that you can grow grapes in Norway today, however, it's not commercially viable since you may loose your crop, and it's so easy to transport wine from the South.
[from Gavin at realclimate.org]
Deducing temperature from commercial vineyards is fraught with problems. Transporting wine large distances is now very easy; during the MWP/LIA/past is was hard. So the incentive to grow grapes locally was much much stronger.
So, the climate has always been changing, and while it's almost certain that humans have made an impact on the environment, I find it very hard to believe that the results will be catastrophic.
Sticks head in sand.
Take the long view. We're going to run out of fossil fuels - burn up all our resources. Even if global warming doesn't cause catastrophic problems (like displacing all the people in Bangladesh, for one example), it is nonetheless *prudent* to at least stretch out our natural resources.
This ultra-right-wing perspective that the economy can do without natural resources is patently false.
In our profligate use of resources we are the generations who won the lottery but squandered it all in an a moment of time. -- Lee Coates
Well said. I agree so heartily, that we need a perfect example. Something with 7 words or less is ideal, so it will fit within the processing powers of the listener. Unfortunately complex truths must be expressed concisely.
I'm thinking something like: "The sky is red. No it's blue. Therefore it must be purple." But my example is too absurd to be taken seriously.
You do admit the Middle-East problems happened during Carter's watch, as did the hyper inflation, double digit unemployment rate, recession, high gas prices, and hostage crisis.
Lets take that apart:
A revolution in Iran happened during Carter's watch. Those revolutionaries weren't born, raised, and revolted in 4 years.
As did: hyper inflation, double digit unemployment rate , recession. Yes, yes, yes. Again, Carter was the the wrong person in at the wrong time. The antecedents to stagflation and the world-wide woes at the time were fall-outs from previous economic success. Just like Bush Jr isn't responsible for the most recent stock-market crash, which had it's antecedents largely in the 20 years previous
high gas prices: yes, the oil producing nations of the world decided to get a better deal. Was that Carter's fault? Again, the wrong person at the wrong time.
hostage crisis: yes. Carter solved that, and the Republicans took credit. It's doubtful that anybody could have averted what happened, although Carter did make some mistakes as I noted before
AND, the Iran-Contra Scandal had NOTHING to do with the hostage crisis that Carter SOLVED. The US hostages involved in the Iran-Contra scandal were 6 US citizens being held by Hezbollah.
Just as you can claim Fox News has a right-wing bias, so can you prove that Moveon.org and other liberal blogs that they run and create are also biased but in a left-wing sense.,
It's not a matter of bias in this case, but getting a few basic facts straight. rotfl!
Don't know anything about Taft, but crucifying Carter for the Islamic revolution is revisionist. The antecedents for the revolution are complex, and much to do with the actions of the British empire. Jimmy Carter did not create the whole middle-east hatey thing. Not by a long shot.
Although I do *not* support the Iranian revolutionaries, the Shah was one of those nasty idiot dictators that was a puppet of Western powers. So the revolutionaries had it in for western imperial powers, and for good reason. It would have been better for everyone if a bunch of moderates took over, but that is history.
Carter angered Iranian revolutionaries by toasting the Shah just before the revolution. Carter tried to work with the new regime after the take-over, however, he really pissed them off again by allowing the Shah to receive medical treatment in the US. Note that Carter only granted the request to the Shah because of pressure from Rockefeller and Kissinger.
The paranoid revolutionaries in Iran thought that the USA was plotting a "counter" coup, but they never were. To consolidate power, the revolutionaries started the hostage crisis. There was probably nothing that could have been done to militate the course of events. Dealing with hostile paranoid revolutionaries is hard - esp. when they already hate you and blame you for all of their problems.
Carter attempted to negotiate, and then there was the ill-fated rescue mission. Perhaps you think Carter should have let the US embassy staff rot in hell? They were just doing their jobs, and the US administration was doing nothing wrong at the time.
The talks that successfully negotiated the release of the hostages were initiated by Carter two months before the election. The release occurred shortly after Reagan was sworn in as president.
THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELEASE, but in a twist of irony, they got the entire political capital for it - essentially because of the campaign. The Republican administration did nothing to set the history straight in the publics mind, by giving credit where it was due.
You can read all about it on the internet. It might open your eyes.
Your approach as stated is very reptilian (think brain-stem), however, we are mammals with a limbic system and prefrontal cortex as well. So there's wisdom in what you say, however, it misses 2/3rds of the story, which is really what makes us human.
The aggressive attitude that "balances-everything-out" is very important, but even more important is an understanding of non-aggression. We are all in this together - interlinked - and kindness and consideration for others helps everyone.
To use your analogies: if you see someone attracted to you, who is having difficulty romantically, then some consideration and belief in their intrinsic worth will bring out the best in them. Doesn't mean you date them or do anything for them really.
Same goes for work. A boss has the potential to bring out the best in employees, as Steven Covey illustrates in Principle Oriented Leadership.
The net effect of this approach is a win-win; and also greater than the sum of it's parts. It's in tune with our basic nature, which seeks to improve the inclusive fitness of the species. You've merely described the equivalent of the reproductive fitness - which favours sociopaths of all kinds.
The left is not about pathologizing people, but helping us all about become better than we are. Thus an unemployed person is not *lazy*, perhaps they are having difficulties - which we all do at some point. Giving a handout to a lazy person is effectively cruel. Giving a handout to someone in difficulties helps break a vicious cycle.
The political left is not about whining for handouts. That's a strawman that you use for self-propaganda.
The Canadian system is like this too I believe, although I haven't spent enough time in Canada to comment
The Canadian system does not have preferential voting, which is really too bad. The current government was voted in with only 38% of the vote, because the NDP, Liberals and Bloc couldn't swap preferences. The politics here are also regionally divisive. Furthermore, because Canada has provinces, which aren't as powerful as states, the politics looks from Ontario and Quebec outwards.
There are obvious other solutions to this problem. For example, you may be gagged for a period of 2 weeks. The request by the police must be entered as a matter of public record, to be revealed in no less then 1 month. Something like that would make the police think twice about targeting "undesirables". Note that the US wiretapping program has been used to track left-wing journalists. This is what happens when there's no accountability.
Also, consider the absurdity, absolute insanity, on attempting to gag a terrorist cell member with a legal threat. Who are you kidding. A cell member wouldn't blink and eye breaking such a law.
It's a simple as that. The options are to do a 16th century Japan and ban progress, or accept there will be problems en route.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is the proliferation of well funded conservative think tanks (CTTs), with no other agenda than shaping the public discourse, and project their own intellectual dishonesty onto their political opponents. So it makes perfect sense that some people think that there's some sort of liberal conspiracy to bring back socialism, when in fact, most liberals couldn't care less about socialism.
There are liberal think tank, however, they are mostly concerned with environmentalism and social justice. As such, they don't get a pinch of the funding as CTTs.
My argument against AGW "science" is that it is not science for the reason that it makes no attempt to connect the models to reality. That is an argument, and the argument that I made. So I have not and do not claim that I don't have to make any argument against it.
You really think you have some special insight that the entire scientific establishment does not. That sounds quite psychotic.
I have made my argument, and you have yet to refute it.
You have not made an argument at all, but merely asserted that extant science does not meet your personal standards of epistemology - a term of which I suspect you know next to nothing.
Found the article here. 928 peer reviewed articles for AGW, and zero against.
zero is ten less than ten.
There ain't no skeptics who actually engage in the scientific process through peer review journals. Instead they concentrate on the media, and policy makers, in the hope of, and I quote a leeked memo:
"reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
That's the position you're trying to defend.
See here, and my previous (grandparent link), for who the skeptics actually are. That's an important point that you should address in your reply.
My mistake about Peilke (Sr and Jr). They are not publishing skeptic articles though. Try again.
A systematic review of climate science literature over a period of years founds something like 1500 articles for AGW, and 1 against.
Peilke's work doesn't get published in peer reviewed journals.
Two bald assertions. If you would like to back them up with evidence, feel free.
rotfl! I already did. It's in my last post. Something about peer review by scientists who understand the philosophy of science and epistemology. What you got? Bald ass assertions, that's what.
It is absurd. That's why I didn't make such a statement.
Oh but you did:
I don't have to be skeptical of the AGW - there are no concepts of which to be skeptical.
So are you changing your story to there being science but that that science has not concepts? Whatever dude.
Perhaps studying this will help. Good luck =)
I would, however, say I fit into the category I identified in my last post.
Not true, you fit into the category of not understanding what climate scientists are actually talking about, and using back-handed methods to avoid actually understanding what they're actually talking about. That's exactly where you are.
because....
I can't even get to that point, because there are no concepts to understand. Just models with equations and variables. What those variables represent in reality - if anything - has not been determined.
That is simply not true.
No, I did not suggest that. You're presuming there is "science" - I'm saying there isn't any, not yet at least.
And neither is that.
There is real climate science out there, published in respectable journals (such as nature), reviewed by real scientists, including some who understand the philosophy of science and epistemology.
Stating that you don't have to make an argument against AGW science, because there's no science to argue about is *ABSURD*
Okay, I replace "expert in the literature", with "understanding the concepts discussed in the literature". Equivocate away, but my point still stands.
It's true that consensus doesn't imply a connection to reality in a strict sense - think IQ testing in the US in the era of eugenics. But the science isn't wrong simply because scientific consensus does not strickly imply a connection to reality, as you surreptitiously suggest.
If you have an argument against the scientific consensus, then make it. Perhaps you really *do* know better. Prove if to the world. Perhaps you'll win a noble prize, and save humanity from itself.
Nobody has yet made a single cogent argument against AGW, that stands up to even modest scrutiny. Most of the skeptics arguments are absolute meretricious junk. That's because they come from a small cabal of conservative think tanks, who are *not* interested in honest skeptisim, or further developing an accurate perception of climate on planet Earth.
So if my dichotomy is truly false, then where do you fit into the big picture?
But there aren't scientists on both sides of the debate. It's science vs. a small cabal of conservative think thanks.
I am somewhat familiar with the literature. The few actually intelligent skeptics out there aren't actually scientists, but businessmen and economists.
This is simple to prove. Try to find 10 articles from the skeptic side, that meet the standards necessary to be published in a journal. (Hint, you can't). Of the paltry number of articles that you do find, look at the field of expertise of the submitters.
If indeed I have presented a false dichotomy, then please explain the 3rd option.
I could point out the flaws in your claims, but doubt it's possible to get anything through an impenetrable schema.
However...
All I will ask of YOU is too do the research behind the science of climate change and draw your own conclusions, before you are sway by ANY mass public opinion.
There is something you should know. All those skeptic websites, books and movies, can be traced back to a very small cabal of conservative think-tanks.
I've done the research myself. Both the science, and the political stall tactics. You have unwittingly become the pawn of well-paid industry prostitutes.
Science does not go hand-in-hand with majority opinion - neither does science require consensus, nor does consensus imply any connection to reality.
Nice try. Are you an expert on the literature? Or are you one more of the uniformed masses, and using a back-handed insult to discredit a great preponderance of scientific work without ever bothering to actually understand what that work is.
Strangely enough, I am still convinced that the evidence behind the causes and effects of global warming is much less than watertight.
There is, however, consensus in the scientific community. Getting all those egos to agree on something isn't easy. All the professional skeptics are from other disciplines, such as economics. Go figure.
For one thing, there is abviously no chance to have a double blind experiment, since we only have one earth.
Double-bind experiment, wtf? Are you afraid that there may be a placebo effect.
The EPA has squashed some internal opinions that went against the common belief, as has been reported on Slashdot
It's here. So simple to find (google for EPA site:slashdot.org). If you actually look into what was happening, you'll find that the EPAs actions were more than justified. The quashed report did not meet the standards necessary for a university paper, and was full of omissions and errors. If there was any veracity to their report, then they would have fixed the errors and resubmitted. There report was, however, hopeless.
I am also concerned about the amount of public money being thrown about.
Me too. Particularly by special interest groups whose goal is to make people think that there is some doubt over the issue. Marketing in the modern age is a powerful force.
As far as throwing good money at unrealistic power alternatives, I also agree. However, that's a political problem. For example, it seems like the US will never stop subsidising corn production, and hence the whole corn-ethonol mess. Perhaps I feel it would be more constructive to attack these problems instead of denying AGW.
The scientific debate will hopefully go on.
The science is settled - it has been for a long time. We know it's happening, and that humans caused it.
Let's hope the political debate is stifled until some meaningful consensus can be reached
Here, here. The debate is purely political. There is science on one side, and a bunch of marketing firms employed by special interest groups on the other side. The truth is being lost because that's what marketing firms do . Somewhat ironically, they are scientific about sowing discord.
We know there has been natural global cooling - ice ages and the like, so it would make complete sense for there to have been natural global warming at some point too.
Just because the climate has natural cycles, doesn't mean that human being can't interfere. And the *evidence* is that we have.
We also know in the UK the romans (circa 100BC) grew grapes almost up to the scottish borders, something not possible today because it's too cold.
Note that you can grow grapes in Norway today, however, it's not commercially viable since you may loose your crop, and it's so easy to transport wine from the South.
[from Gavin at realclimate.org] Deducing temperature from commercial vineyards is fraught with problems. Transporting wine large distances is now very easy; during the MWP/LIA/past is was hard. So the incentive to grow grapes locally was much much stronger.
So, the climate has always been changing, and while it's almost certain that humans have made an impact on the environment, I find it very hard to believe that the results will be catastrophic.
Sticks head in sand.
Take the long view. We're going to run out of fossil fuels - burn up all our resources. Even if global warming doesn't cause catastrophic problems (like displacing all the people in Bangladesh, for one example), it is nonetheless *prudent* to at least stretch out our natural resources.
This ultra-right-wing perspective that the economy can do without natural resources is patently false.
In our profligate use of resources we are the generations who won the lottery but squandered it all in an a moment of time. -- Lee Coates
I appreciate your earnestness. Perhaps this will help you make sense of the situation: schemata
The question is will they continue to get investors to fund this campaign?
Yes.
I believe someone will front the cash, because otherwise it will be too embarrassing to certain special interest groups.
Well said. I agree so heartily, that we need a perfect example. Something with 7 words or less is ideal, so it will fit within the processing powers of the listener. Unfortunately complex truths must be expressed concisely.
I'm thinking something like: "The sky is red. No it's blue. Therefore it must be purple." But my example is too absurd to be taken seriously.
Any ideas?
Lets take that apart:
AND, the Iran-Contra Scandal had NOTHING to do with the hostage crisis that Carter SOLVED. The US hostages involved in the Iran-Contra scandal were 6 US citizens being held by Hezbollah.
Just as you can claim Fox News has a right-wing bias, so can you prove that Moveon.org and other liberal blogs that they run and create are also biased but in a left-wing sense.,
It's not a matter of bias in this case, but getting a few basic facts straight. rotfl!
Don't know anything about Taft, but crucifying Carter for the Islamic revolution is revisionist. The antecedents for the revolution are complex, and much to do with the actions of the British empire. Jimmy Carter did not create the whole middle-east hatey thing. Not by a long shot.
Although I do *not* support the Iranian revolutionaries, the Shah was one of those nasty idiot dictators that was a puppet of Western powers. So the revolutionaries had it in for western imperial powers, and for good reason. It would have been better for everyone if a bunch of moderates took over, but that is history.
Carter angered Iranian revolutionaries by toasting the Shah just before the revolution. Carter tried to work with the new regime after the take-over, however, he really pissed them off again by allowing the Shah to receive medical treatment in the US. Note that Carter only granted the request to the Shah because of pressure from Rockefeller and Kissinger.
The paranoid revolutionaries in Iran thought that the USA was plotting a "counter" coup, but they never were. To consolidate power, the revolutionaries started the hostage crisis. There was probably nothing that could have been done to militate the course of events. Dealing with hostile paranoid revolutionaries is hard - esp. when they already hate you and blame you for all of their problems.
Carter attempted to negotiate, and then there was the ill-fated rescue mission. Perhaps you think Carter should have let the US embassy staff rot in hell? They were just doing their jobs, and the US administration was doing nothing wrong at the time.
The talks that successfully negotiated the release of the hostages were initiated by Carter two months before the election. The release occurred shortly after Reagan was sworn in as president.
THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELEASE, but in a twist of irony, they got the entire political capital for it - essentially because of the campaign. The Republican administration did nothing to set the history straight in the publics mind, by giving credit where it was due.
You can read all about it on the internet. It might open your eyes.
Your approach as stated is very reptilian (think brain-stem), however, we are mammals with a limbic system and prefrontal cortex as well. So there's wisdom in what you say, however, it misses 2/3rds of the story, which is really what makes us human.
The aggressive attitude that "balances-everything-out" is very important, but even more important is an understanding of non-aggression. We are all in this together - interlinked - and kindness and consideration for others helps everyone.
To use your analogies: if you see someone attracted to you, who is having difficulty romantically, then some consideration and belief in their intrinsic worth will bring out the best in them. Doesn't mean you date them or do anything for them really.
Same goes for work. A boss has the potential to bring out the best in employees, as Steven Covey illustrates in Principle Oriented Leadership.
The net effect of this approach is a win-win; and also greater than the sum of it's parts. It's in tune with our basic nature, which seeks to improve the inclusive fitness of the species. You've merely described the equivalent of the reproductive fitness - which favours sociopaths of all kinds.
The left is not about pathologizing people, but helping us all about become better than we are. Thus an unemployed person is not *lazy*, perhaps they are having difficulties - which we all do at some point. Giving a handout to a lazy person is effectively cruel. Giving a handout to someone in difficulties helps break a vicious cycle.
The political left is not about whining for handouts. That's a strawman that you use for self-propaganda.
To be fair, Bush pissed off the whole world and destroyed the US budget. Both will take years to repair. No other US president can come close to that.
The Canadian system is like this too I believe, although I haven't spent enough time in Canada to comment
The Canadian system does not have preferential voting, which is really too bad. The current government was voted in with only 38% of the vote, because the NDP, Liberals and Bloc couldn't swap preferences. The politics here are also regionally divisive. Furthermore, because Canada has provinces, which aren't as powerful as states, the politics looks from Ontario and Quebec outwards.
There are obvious other solutions to this problem. For example, you may be gagged for a period of 2 weeks. The request by the police must be entered as a matter of public record, to be revealed in no less then 1 month. Something like that would make the police think twice about targeting "undesirables". Note that the US wiretapping program has been used to track left-wing journalists. This is what happens when there's no accountability.
Also, consider the absurdity, absolute insanity, on attempting to gag a terrorist cell member with a legal threat. Who are you kidding. A cell member wouldn't blink and eye breaking such a law.
It's a simple as that. The options are to do a 16th century Japan and ban progress, or accept there will be problems en route.
You are soooooooooooooooooo wrong.