Global Warming:The Politics and Science of Fear

madanthonywayne

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
Common sence and logic coming from where I'd least expect it, a college profesor!
James Wanliss, a space physicist who teaches at Embry-Riddle, showed students the two films in an honors course titled "The Politics and Science of Fear" because he said more and more the public is being sold one side of an issue with many dimensions.

"I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals," he wrote in an e-mail. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science."
Click to expand...
One of his students attests to the effect of propaganda such as Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
After watching 'An Inconvenient Truth,' I was relatively convinced," Shipley said one day last month in class. "(Al Gore) did a good job in presenting his points very methodically one after the other. They all build up to essentially prove his point.

"After watching 'The Great Global Warming Swindle,' my thinking completely changed," he said. "I kind of did a complete flip-flop."
Click to expand...
Both of these movies present facts, some distorted perhaps, but they each present one side of the debate. Yet it is only one side that is being forced down the throats of students all over the world. It's even popping up in art class! One University requires that its students watch Al Gore's movie to graduate!

This kind of consensus science propaganda is dangerous. These are the same methods used by the eugenics scientists and we all know how that worked out. Science is a process. Calling those who disagree with your conclusions "Global Warming deniers" and fascists is intimidation not science.
The truths of global warming are, if not inconvenient, incomprehensible, Wanliss argues.

"The atmosphere is incredibly complicated, and we know very little about it," he said. "We are studying a system which is so big . . . we don't know what all the variables are."

Pointing to quotes in magazine articles, Wanliss says Gore and the producers of the "Swindle" film are purposefully overstating their science as a means to a political end.
Click to expand...
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm
 
Gore's movie is not science, but rhetoric. He is attempting to persuade. But he sticks closely to honest reason and evidence, and what he presents supports his conclusions in the original.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not honest, does not reason honestly or stick closely to evidence, and appears to be a politically motivated con job.

There are good reasons for squinting at Gore's movie, qualifying some of the assertions in it, etc. The Swindle movie does not present any of them honestly. Presenting them as two equivalently supported and opposing views would be intellectually dishonest.

I don't know whether Gore will be shown correct in his urgency or specific warnings, in fifty years. But uncertainty about one position does not mean any old scam assuming some "other" position deserves equal time.
 
There is something very important to remember here. The vast majority of scientists and others who support the concept of global warming actually have very little to gain by supporting their position.

On the other hand, there are HUGE numbers of people and corporations that have an awful LOT to gain by denying it.

So, the first question would be, what do you know about the sponsors and producers of the "Great Global Warming Swindle?" Could it be either directly or indirectly (to hide their identities) that much of the money used for it's production came from parties that have a lot to save if they can forestall action that would hurt their profits?
 
I'm not going there. I'm not going to get all p!ssed off again. You already know what America's two biggest problems are.

alGore's fiction is not one of them:rolleyes:
 
sandy said:
I'm not going there. I'm not going to get all p!ssed off again. You already know what America's two biggest problems are.

alGore's fiction is not one of them:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hello, Sandy,

I've not had occasion to speak to you before - just worked out that way - and I was hoping our first encounter might be on topic upon which we agreed. But, apparently, no such luck.

Since it seems you don't believe that Global Warming / climate change is real, I was just wondering - are you qualified to challenge all the professionals who think it is? The mounting evidence certainly seems to indicate that they just might know what they're talking about.

What basis do you have to disbelive it?
 
Fine, don't get all scared and vote for Democrats. Just adapt to climate change. Oh, wait, you're not, because you're in the pockets of big oil? I guess we're all screwed, then.
 
spidergoat said:
Fine, don't get all scared and vote for Democrats. Just adapt to climate change. Oh, wait, you're not, because you're in the pockets of big oil? I guess we're all screwed, then.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm in the pocket of big oil.

Gore's movie is full of crap. He claims sea levels will rise twenty feet in the next hundred years, when the actual maximum prediction is twenty inches! That's a pretty big fuckin' difference! That's the whole basis for his claims of cities being flooded, mass population relocation. etc.

Twenty inches in a hundred years is nothing, and that's the max predicted if we do nothing. Did you know sea levels rose two or three feet in the last hundred years? Does that fact stand as one of the worst trajedies of the twentieth century? Were you even aware of it?

I believe the earth has warmed about one degree in the past hundred years. I also know that there's not shit we can do about it.

The treatments suggested (kyoto) would do far more harm then good. The sea rise of the last hundred years was no problem, why should an equivalent rise in the next hundred be one?

If you want to talk about using compact flourecent litebulbs, increasing spending on alternative fuels, building nuclear power plants, etc; I'm with you. But forcing us to limit energy use to 1990 levels while our population is growing is not going to happen. Not without a massive cost and a decreased standard of living. All for what?

The point is, the global warming crowd seeks to stifle all debate and paint those who dare question their othodoxy as heretics. If science is really on their side, why the bully tactics? Why must we shove this crap down the throats of captive audiences (school children and college students)? Why is this movie being shown in art class?

It's propaganda pure and simple.
 
madanth said:
Twenty inches in a hundred years is nothing, and that's the max predicted if we do nothing.
Click to expand...
That would be a disaster, just in its effects on river delta rice farming.

madanth said:
He claims sea levels will rise twenty feet in the next hundred years,
Click to expand...
Not in the version of the movie I saw.

madanth said:
If science is really on their side, why the bully tactics? Why must we shove this crap down the throats of captive audiences (school children and college students)?
Click to expand...
Because they care, and they're worried. You're not?

The science debate is there for anyone interested. Few people read the journals, and fewer still believe reports from them retailed by others. Having he science on their side hasn't done the anti-GM foods crowd much good, has it. It hasn't led to sound environmental policies with regad to forest fire or antibiotics or lakeshore development or logging practices. Gore is a politician - that's his field.
 
alGore needed a cause. His presidential campaign didn't go as expected.:D
The problem is he picked a cause that no one cares about and no one is taking real seriously. (Weren't the liberals the ones telling us in the 70's that if we didn't do something, we'd have a huge FREEZE?)

We have MUCH bigger problems in this world right now than worrying about global hot air.:rolleyes:
 
iceaura said:
That would be a disaster, just in its effects on river delta rice farming.

Not in the version of the movie I saw.

Because they care, and they're worried. You're not?

The science debate is there for anyone interested. Few people read the journals, and fewer still believe reports from them retailed by others. Having he science on their side hasn't done the anti-GM foods crowd much good, has it. It hasn't led to sound environmental policies with regad to forest fire or antibiotics or lakeshore development or logging practices. Gore is a politician - that's his field.
Click to expand...

Ya i agree.

We should not wait for billions to die.
 
sandy said:
alGore needed a cause. His presidential campaign didn't go as expected.:D
The problem is he picked a cause that no one cares about and no one is taking real seriously. (Weren't the liberals the ones telling us in the 70's that if we didn't do something, we'd have a huge FREEZE?)

We have MUCH bigger problems in this world right now than worrying about global hot air.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

People like u r destroying our planet and u r responsible for 1000s already dieing and million that will now follow.

Since u have no idea about global dimming, i recommend u to watch some videos from torrents and then come back.
 
I do believe in Global Warming, what I and many people are skeptical about is the cuase. We have a combination of cuases out there ranging from the sun's overactive cycle to our record breaking closness to the sun. However all these have been denied by so called "climatologists". They weren't even simulated in their models, just discounted entirely. That is just plain crappy science.
 
TW Scott said:
I do believe in Global Warming, what I and many people are skeptical about is the cuase. We have a combination of cuases out there ranging from the sun's overactive cycle to our record breaking closness to the sun. However all these have been denied by so called "climatologists". They weren't even simulated in their models, just discounted entirely. That is just plain crappy science.
Click to expand...

From all that I've read they do take solar cycles into account but I've not seen anything about us being in a period of solar "overactivity" nor about our "record-breaking closeness." Do you have references for each of these?
 
Only what I read at the NASA sites.

Oh and they do factor the sun in, but their model has it as a constant not a variable. It also does not include methane emission from fuana.

Beside Mars has had global warming as well, to the point we now know those caps are water, not CO2. Obviously no human CO2 emissions there.
 
sandy said:
alGore needed a cause. His presidential campaign didn't go as expected.:D
Click to expand...

... Except Gore had been going on about climate change long before he ran for President.

The problem is he picked a cause that no one cares about and no one is taking real seriously.
Click to expand...

You're woefully out of touch with the real world. I assume you live in one of the "fly over" states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top