Global Warming Debate

[The Gaffer]

For once I agree with you, inked. Plus, the Daily Mail would also cease to be, and that would be a cause for great rejoicing.

[inked]

That d**n artic ice is at it again! Replenishing and NOT melting like it is supposed to do!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/3...ay/#more-17970


Next, what? The demise of anthropogenic ozone as a cause for warmer northern areas?

[Earniel]

Seriously? That's it? One month of more ice, and you find that enough to just forget about context and years of data? LOL. Whatever will they try next?

[inked]

Gee, those graphs look like more than one month to me, E. Did you look at the graphs?

(Sure is nice to take a break from campaigning for Hector!)

[Earniel]

Gee, I did. I even read the original NSIDC press release. Did you?

[inked]

Ja. Und I noticd dis:

"As we’ve been saying on WUWT for quite some time, wind seems to be a more powerful factor in recent sea ice declines than temperature."

[EllethValatari]

I think the past year has said a lot. There obviously isn't Global Warming, and if anything, the Earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods. All that to say, no matter what sources you're going to quote to show that Global Warming is happening, even scientists and museums are now refusing to back it up and are now taking a neutral stance.

[The Gaffer]

:lol:

Which scientists and museums?

[Earniel]

Oh dear, not many museums I care to visit, by the sound of it, at least not if it deals with climate and geology. But I am quite positive one can find a good deal of scientists willing to declare that global warming isn't happening. Just not that many with the proper credentials, but that's not important, right? Not when you've got a public opinion to decide on such matters.

In which case, someone needs to clue in the flowers that global warming isn't happening and they've got no business flowering early. And while you're at it, have a talk with the toads. I'm a bit miffed that they've already spawned when I hadn't finished cleaning the pond yet and now I will have to work my way around the egg strings. You have no idea how difficult it is to do pond maintance when there are dozens of t(o)adpoles flitting all over the place.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

:lol:

Which scientists and museums?

Youd be shocked what passes as "mainstream" in this country...

[Deagol]

In terms of the overall health of the planet, mankind is like a bee sting. It's annoying for a little while, but soon enough it's gone and who will remember it was ever there?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But I am quite positive one can find a good deal of scientists willing to declare that global warming isn't happening. Just not that many with the proper credentials, but that's not important, right? Not when you've got a public opinion to decide on such matters.

Further, it appears that one is not above outright lying when it comes to claiming that scientists say that global warming isn't happening.

The Heartland Institute is a lobbying group which has received $676,000 from ExxonMobil. In 2007 it published a list of "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"

It turns out they don't:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr David Sugden, professor of geography, University of Edinburgh

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enial-industry

[Earniel]

Dude, no links to the creation museum please, I'd like to keep my appetite for lunch later.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Further, it appears that one is not above outright lying when it comes to claiming that scientists say that global warming isn't happening.

Ah yes, the imfamous Scientists Denying Global Warming List. I had almost forgotten. I thought the best part of it all is the institute refusing requests from scientists to remove their names. "I don't care if your research is pointing the other way or that you were never actually involved in the papers I claim you were. You're a global denier because I say so. I don't care if my list is bogus, it's pretty and no one is getting off, so there!" How high-school.

It's a bit sad, though. People will happily mob a scientist if a stolen email reveals he has editted a graph, but they'll equally happily accept lobbyists misrepresenting and abusing the reputation of scores of scientists. In PR actual science doesn't matter, I guess.

[The Gaffer]

That is the name of the game, unfortunately.

Sane and reasoned vs deluded and rabid is not a level playing field.

I blame the media.

Actually, no, I blame the denial industry. IMO they are all either misinformed, deluded or malevolent.

There are many classic right-wing tactics to be picked out, but a particularly characteristic one is accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.

e.g. The denial industry accuses researchers of bias because they have a vested interest in getting more funding for their research. The reality is, of course, that the denialists take vast sums of money from energy companies specifically for the purpose of discrediting the message that we should use less energy.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Actually, no, I blame the denial industry. IMO they are all either misinformed, deluded or malevolent.

Well, you can say the same thing about pretty much everyone who's wrong about anything, can't you?

There are many classic right-wing tactics to be picked out, but a particularly characteristic one is accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.

That tactic is hardly peculiar to conservatives. Both right and left are predominantly motivated by ideological commitment, and are quite willing to blind themselves to facts in order to maintain their slavish devotion to these commitments.

Of course, I'm not talking about the affirmation of climate change; how any one can maintain that the entire scientific community is engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to pull the wool over people's eyes is beyond me. I'm just saying that everyone does what they accuse their opponents of doing. It's not liberal or conservative, it's flat out human nature. Trying to pin it exclusively or characteristically on one side is nothing but a self-righteous smugness about being on the "correct" side, and amounts to blindness to one's own faults.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That tactic is hardly peculiar to conservatives. Both right and left are predominantly motivated by ideological commitment, and are quite willing to blind themselves to facts in order to maintain their slavish devotion to these commitments.

+1

Left-wing radicals are just as irritatingly slavish as the right-wing. IN fact, I could argue that there is NOTHING more irritating than this sort of behaviour: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...-base-sabotage (3 morons sabotaged a comms facility).

[GrayMouser]

For those interested in a serious discussion of the issue (i.e. not inked) there's an interesting rundown of the basic economic arguments by Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/ma...pagewanted=all

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm just saying that everyone does what they accuse their opponents of doing. It's not liberal or conservative, it's flat out human nature. Trying to pin it exclusively or characteristically on one side is nothing but a self-righteous smugness about being on the "correct" side, and amounts to blindness to one's own faults.

Thanks doctor.

Except that it's bollocks. Trying to say "oh, both sides are exactly the same" is a pathetic cop-out. It is also exactly the sort of complacent attitude that the denial industry panders to.

There is a right and wrong in this debate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Of course there's a right and wrong in this debate. If you were to do me the courtesy of actually reading my post, you would see that I say:

how any one can maintain that the entire scientific community is engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to pull the wool over people's eyes is beyond me.

Which puts me pretty clearly on the "There is climate change" side.

All I'm saying is that your claim that "right-wing tactics" as a whole being "characteristically" deceptive and hypocritical, delighting in accusing their opponents of doing what they themselves do (with its implication that "left-wing tactics" would be only virtuous, truth-seeking, wholly unmotivated by ideological commitment, and completely devoid of any sort of double standard) falsely places an extremely common and generally human phenomenon solely in one political camp, which is absurd.

Obviously, both sides are not the same.

Obviously, there is a right and a wrong.

Obviously, climate change is a reality.

But that does not excuse such lazy generalizations that "Hypocrisy is characteristic of conservatives as a whole."

[The Gaffer]

Calm down, I did read your whole post. Forgive me for calling "bollocks" but a) it is and b) you accused me of being smug.

It was you who interpreted my positions as being about left-wingers being pure as the driven snow. And also to be about "conservatives as a whole".

What I am pointing out is the tactic, not the personality. I did not intend to suggest that all conservatives are hypocrites.

We find ourselves in a world in which right-wing extremists are increasingly seen as simply one side of the mainstream. I could point you towards endless debates on this website alone in which Creationists accuse "Evolutionists" of being "blinded by their faith".

Can you point me towards one example of "left-wingers" in a mainstream debate using an equivalent tactic?