[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

Quote:

Quote:

Disengenuous? What? Are you for real, man? Whether, or not there's a coming climate catastrophe is what it's about.

To you, perhaps. Not to me.

No for you it is strictly a political matter.

Quote:

But the idealgues are not just aiming their attack at the proposed policy responses to climate change; their vitriol is also aimed at scientists and science itself.

The genuine scientists say it is BS. A politicized, well paid (with public money) cabel of activists (some with credentials) are pursuing a political agenda. There is no science to AGW. If there is once again show it. So far all we have seen are sci-movies, fraud, adjusted data, computer games, and sophistry.

[CanadianJeff]

Well Zipper I wouldn't say that religious powers fighting science is new. I mean look at Galileo for an example. All he did was state what we now know as the absolute truth of the matter of our galaxy and he paid a heavy price for it.

just the other week I saw a large report on the news showing a poll taken that made the claim of half the population being in non belief of evolution. They went on to show that according to their data the more educated someone is the more likely they are to belive in evolution etc etc. Personally I hope it's not true but even then I could see the obvious bias in the presentation trying to get people to convert to the belief of evolution based on the fact that "the more educated you are the more likely you are to belive in this. So you should too!".

So it's certainly nothing new for both sides to use science to promote their own goals. It's kind of a sad trend though. It makes me wonder if science will be no more in 50 years. Instead replaced by a politically funded mockery that tries only to prove what it's paid to prove.

But point in case both sides use science for their own means. It's not just the "right" that will do so.

[N_Fiddledog]

That's kind of the saddest thing about this whole mess. There's good evidence to suggest the climate may be in the process, of shifting back to a cooler trend. The mainstream media has convinced the general public there is only one scientific opinion, and it supports the idea of human-caused global warming.

If the climate continues to get cooler, a point will come where the GP realizes they were had. When that point comes will they ever trust science again?

[Psudo]

Fiddledog: Isn't it philosophically stupid to "trust science" anyway? Science itself is advocacy for determining the truth through experimentation and observation rather than trust in some authority. The same holds true for scientific authorities: the name recognition of Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking doesn't automatically make them right. The experiments they perform and the results they observe do.

What are the experiments that prove global warming is caused by human industry? How do they measure the area covered by rain forests in order to track it's reduction over time? Why aren't the means being declared in place of the prominent scientists' names in such issues of global environmental failure?

The whole method used to inform the public of scientific findings is skewed towards political propaganda by it's nature.

[Zipperfish]

CanadianJeff wrote:

But point in case both sides use science for their own means. It's not just the "right" that will do so.

No, but I would argue its predominately the contemporary "right." There are a number of reasons why. First of all, the right seems to pride itself these days on its anti-intellectualism. They love to go off about the liberal universities, the liberal media infiltrated with a bunch of college types and they like to frame their issues in terms of the "common man" standing against bunch of liberal intellectuals.

Secondly, there is a general consensus in science (I can't wait to see the respnse to that claim!) that humankind came about on this earth due to evolution. However, it is much more common in the political right to believe that humankind was created by a Christian God--as indicated by statements of several GOP candidates recently, for example. Those creationists have not forgiven "science" for Darwin, and they await the day when they can storm the fortress of science and bring back creationism to science (which then, of course, would no longer be science at all).

Also, science itself has many "socialist" aspects. Scientists routinely and openly share their reseacrh with others, so that others may carry on where they left off. Another socialist aspect of science is that a lot of research is conducted by the government. Nor does science particularly care about whose ox is gored, so affected sectors go to the bastion of free market thinking, the political right, to protect thier interests under the guise of protecting the free market.

For thyese reasons, the right is more apt to attack science than teh left.

However, since science is often perceived as objective truth, he whop controls sceince controls the truth. From that aspect, certainly all sides of the political spectrum are guilty of trying to control science.

Also--Galileo was mostly wrong and the church was mostly right, for the record. The Catholic Church had already reached the same conclusion as almost everyone else by Galileo's time--that the earth revolved around the sun (though they still maintained a facade of denial). Their big problem was Galileo's idea of a clockwork universe set in motion when time began; they felt that obviated the need for a god. Since then, we have found that the universe isn't clockwork at all (chaos theory, quantum mechanics, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, etc).

[sasquatch2]

First of all---anti-AGW is not so much anti-science as anti-BS.

AGW has presented BS as science. AGW is a passionate matter for lefties who cannot grasp the concept that failing to follow this insanity is not right wing.

This much like the left's largely successful effort to define Nazi's as right wing when the reality is that the Nazi's were left wing. Just because the Nazi's were the natural enemies of the communists is not evidence of right wing leanings.......any more than open warfare between the USSR and the PRC makes the PRC rightwing. Or the Sino-Vietnam war of the 70's is evidence of either the Chinese or North Vietnamese are actually right wing ideology.

The consensus is a media creation. This was concocted in the absence of valid proof of CO2 causation or climate driving. Much like Micheal Mann's "hockey-stick" was concocted to make the MWP disappear.

[stokes]

Whether you believe the Global Warming Story or not doesnt matter.

Heres the whole truth.

Anyone with a brain knows that we are running out of affordable oil and therefore the powers that be came up with the whole conspiracy to get research into alternative fuels.

Too bad that really dumb people are in politics are trying to refute the need for alternative fuels.

[N_Fiddledog]

Did anybody see that 60 minutes special on the Antarctic, and the Arctic last Sunday. My God, what a bunch of hucksters. What an unmitigated fraud. It was the most stilted piece of propagandized, crap I've seen this side of the CBC. They weren't even in the Antarctic, like they said they were. They were on an island 120 miles to the north in the volcanic region. The only scientists they would interview were the ones who held the radical views they wanted to represent.

This is where the general public gets their "science".

[sasquatch2]

Three

Quote:

That's likely the only kind of scientists there are in the Antarctic, because they see the damage, see the truth. the so-called 'scientists' hired by the oil lobby to refute climate change are the same so-called 'scientists' who were hired by the tobacco lobby to convince us smoking wasn't dangerous.
It was the report of the UN on climate..........

Three....you are really outa your depth here Homer.

That oil lobby smear is urban myth #2, right after myth #1 (CO2 climate driving).

Public money has spent $50,000,000,000 (that's billions) to find evidence of CO2 causation and nothing has surfaced.

As N_Fiddledog pointed out they were not even in the Antarctic. likely not even south of the Antarctic circle. These charletons like to go to antarctica in the antarctic summer to film melting. They are correct that NO viewers will think it is winter because it is winter in NA.

There was no mention that last Antarctic winter the southern pack ice covered a record, unprecedented area or that the mass and thickness of the Antarctic Ice Cap was growing fast.

No they go in the summer, (currently) and pass summer sweat as melting and you stupidly buy it.

Nancy Pelossi did the same stunt in Greenland last July.