|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:10 am Post subject: |
    |
|
| Chris, read the comments following those actual links Kevin provided and tell me they represent reasonable attitudes. I refer to nothing more generalised than those, specific comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I browsed through them and did not see anything particularly radical. Do you have a specific comment you are referring to?
The first article on the coal industry is bound to rile people who feel like legitimate science is being confused for the self interests of the fossil fuel industry. And in fact I can see that the fossil fuel industry does have something to lose here and so their motives and actions should be questioned.
We would also be very skeptical of anyone with ties to wind turbines, etc..
Comments following the glacier story seemed pretty subdued.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1121
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing radical about alienating people with condencending rethoric, it's a proven technique. I'll fire up my Dick Cheney effigy and throw in a flag to really get 'em them uneducateds to see the light of our global plight. Get that astroturf roots going in style. The backlash has begun.
I have yet to see that "reach across the aisle" as promised.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1121
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sitting outside Glacier National Park, just a little north of the world largest super volcano in the throughly RED state of Montana. I've got a great perpective for sure. My neighbors could give a rats patooty about global warming right now. The "whatever you want to call yourselves" on the left authoritarion side has throughly angered those 2nd amendment loving, constitution abiding people who work hard at trying to do the right thing. They are circling the wagons. I would say forced into it, out of neccessity. Awoken a sleeping giant? Astroturf my butt, I've met them, enjoyed a tea too.
Where's the reset button when you need it?
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've actually spent some time compiling a commentary on some of the posted replies to the linked articles. However, I think these correspondents would have grounds for objecting to me taking selections of their writing without permission and - they might argue - out of context too. My second idea - to include them as anonymous quotes - would be guilty of taking material without attribution. So, double bind, methinks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: |
We would also be very skeptical of anyone with ties to wind turbines, etc..
Comments following the glacier story seemed pretty subdued. |
Yeah, I'm beginning to think you and I would but would we then be lumped in with the 'doubters' 'non-believers' 'heretics' etc.?
I agree with your concluding remark too, having read through them again, although there's still a partisan tone of 'evidence supporting the concept = evidence; evidence contradicting the concept = manipulative propaganda'.
Of course, this rhetorical game is played by both sides in the debate. And it may be that, of the first hand scientific sources, more agree with the global warming hypothesis than disagree with it. Or is this the case? I simply don't know. And, when compiling the figures, to be fair, I think we'd have to discount all those scientists who are funded by parties who have an axe to grind. On either side. Which, these days, doesn't leave many scientists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that site is pro climate change and so you are going to find a more partisan group of people there. These are generally average people and do not represent scientists.
How many are funded by people with an agenda?
I like to think of myself as being concerned about environmental issues, I do believe we should be conservative with resources. Does this mean that if I was in a position to fund science I would bias it towards conservation?
I don't see where it is a good thing to work off false premises simply to support my views about what is right and regardless of GW I still have the same opinion. In other words I don't see how making up stuff would do us any good. It isn't as though there is a shortage of good things we can be doing and we need to make up stuff. I seriously doubt anyone is going to do anything drastic about it anyway. Generally I think it would be kind of stupid tilting at windmills.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You've said before that scientists have little to gain from biasing their results and that people employing scientists would have little to gain by using them to do something essentially non-scientific: PR. I think in most cases this is probably true. The vast majority of scientists will be pretty rigorous in maintaining adherence to scientific procedure, for reasons of professional integrity if nothing else.
I suppose what I've been expressing today is just mild disappointment, because I'd been hoping to find something a little more convincing on the 'pro' side of things in order to balance some of the very well written and researched stuff I've been reading on the 'con' side. But all I seem to get on the 'pro' side is zealotry, denunciations and assumed causal relationships.
Of course, the links were posted to make a particular point - one which the first one did make - and I'm not suggesting they were supposed to represent some overall case for proving global warming or not. Far from it.
I just have to find a book that lays it all out in a tone that I can stomach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is a lot easier to make convincing arguments on the con side where you don't necessarily need science.
If I say the slightly higher temperature has been caused by slightly increase sun activity that just sounds reasonable. If I embellish it with scientific jargon I might even sound like I know what I am talking about. But the truth is that without good evidence this is simply manipulating the average persons use of simple logic. We all know the sun produces heat because we can directly sense it.
We all learned about the ice age in school and so we all know that it has warmed up since then. It is not a big step then to consider this warming a normal part of nature and so any argument that says so sounds reasonable.
Humans and all creatures evolved to rely on their senses to tell them what is happening around them. We can't directly sense a few degrees of temperature rise over a 100 year period. If every year, it got one degree hotter we would all soon be concerned. So that the time scale (even though alarming) is still not within our direct sense.
People and all creatures do not like change. It produces fear and anxiety.
So our basic instincts are against this in the first place. We all have a ton of evolution we drag along with us that we have to get past before we can even begin to look at this in a rational way.
Also I am not sure that the average scientist even has a propensity towards believing in global warming or ecology. By nature on average they would tend to be skeptics about everything and more interested in finding correct answers than ideological answers.
Truthfully I have not spent a lot of time reading about the science one way or the other. I am just the opposite of you, the natural cause theories I have read about have seemed rather poorly done.
I rationalize it in another way though. First, I don't particularly care whether it is true or not. If it is true than it fits in with my general thinking that we should use resources more conservatively. If it is not true it doesn't matter anyway and we are not going to change either way. If it is true than we will be dealing with at least 3ft. of sea level rise this century but I won't be around most of that time anyway. The most unsure part of the science is the total net effect of GW. Other than sea level rise is it good or bad?
I am not particularly inclined to doomsday scenarios. I think humans have many challenging problems they will face in the near future but we will survive.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 728
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, I predict we'll be deluged not in rising oceans of water but in teen webcam spam  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
