Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by James R, Dec 12, 2011.
Their bloodlines did not die out. They evolved into birds.
Which routinely shit on SUV's to demonstrate their jealousy and regrets they didn't think of them first.
Come on, you can do better than that. Back on subject please. I don't think it can be explained, but perhaps it can be better understood. Using horse racing terms; "Always put your money on self interest, at least you know it's a tryer". Please consider this in formulating your hypothesis. 1. USA needs a more direct sea route between New York harbour and Shanghi harbour. 2. Both USA and Russia want the ice at the north pole to melt so they can get at the oil (and diamonds) there. 3. In 1978, the USA and the then USSR signed a test ban treaty on "chemical, WEATHER and biological warfare". Check library of Congress for that. It is standard procedure to create a diversion and cover story. Yes the Earth's temperature is rising and it is contributed by human activity (besides the above). For example, northern Australia is getting hotter and wetter because of increased industrial activity in Asia. And yes, Earth is still coming out of its latest ice age. The world is never as simple as some would have you believe it is. P.S. Do we need to take drastic action to survive on this planet? YES. If you have the courage to know what is really going on, check Amazon's eBOOK by S. W. Norton. This is not about conflict or who is right and who is wrong. This is about our survival!
You forgot one other thing, oil companies also have pseudo-scientific institutes which investigate and "prove" that global warming is a myth, there was one scientist who actually aknowledged this, but I forgot his name, of course he go fired, after he uncovered them.
As far as the opening post goes, climate and evolution are the two topics that collect all kinds of denialists. People who generally have no interest in science but studied up some web sites that fit their ideology.
The answer is that we all have biases and we all use our intellects to rationalize the things we prefer to believe from time to time. It's as common as using our intellects to determine *what* we should believe.
In fact any time you have a strong emotional reaction to a given topic, it is highly unlikely that reason, rather than emotion, is driving your beliefs. It may happen that the two coincide in certain cases, but reason almost always gives ground to strongly felt positions. In those cases, we are prone to only accepting evidence that confirms our emotionally based positions, and using our reason solely to defend our pre-existing belief rather than using it in a disinterested way.
It's not just climate science (and not just conservatives) either: evolution, the safety and utility of GM or irradiated foods, the safety and utility of vaccines, that there are measurable statistical differences in human intelligence between the sexes and different races, that there is a genetic basis of homosexuality, there are many areas in which large numbers of people will cling to a preferred belief rather than engage with the totality of the facts.
Sadly, we all do that from time to time. No one is completely immune from that sort of cognitive bias. It is true, though, that the media help entrench it, as it is easier to openly express that kind of bias when you see others who have the same biased beliefs (especially if you can pick and choose the messages you hear...as then even if you hold a minority position, you can have that reinforced regularly and lose sight of the fact that you position is not widely embraced).
Science is supposed to be about objectivity to facts. Politics is not about facts. but perception, spin and manipulation. When you mix politics with science, what you get is a perversion of science, although it might upgrade politics. However, this type of science is not trustworthy.
Think of it logically. The belief in global warming (lock stock and barrel) or not, is divdied down political party lines. It is divided down subjective lines crafted by the masters of perception manipulation and spin. This means is it corrupt science. If it was based on just science, both parties would be divided via its individuals in sort of a random way. The division is based on political manipulation.
Here is how I look at it. The scientific data says the earth has warmed slightly. This is based on fact and not political spin. On the other hand, the future implicatiions are not so certain, because the future is not based on hard fact or real data. This is where spin and manipulation is very effective. If i was evil, this is where you pour the snake oil. This is the place where the poltiical propaganda machines, divide the irrational herd into two to divide and conqueor. There is no room in science for politics, since lying and spin is not how you interpret data and predict the future.
Notice also how mudslingingis always part of this science discussion. Like in political adds, we do science with smear tactics. That is corrupt science.
Mud slinging is a political trick as old as corruption. Picture two people standing side by side. To be taller you can rise above with merit. If you lack merit, you can try to dig a hole for the other guy (he appears to sink) to create the illusion you have risen above him. Mud slinging is science is dirty science based on lack of merit in one's position and a need to create the illusion of rising. This is a litmus test for which side has the worse position of merit.
Much of science is the effort to predict the future. It has been remarkably effective at this. We can, for example, design devices based on physical principles and have them work the first time. We can predict weather several days out with a high degree of accuracy. We can accurately model things like aerodynamics, chemical reactions and physics.
The test of this, of course, is to make predictions and then see if they turn out to be accurate. So far the predictions for AGW have been fairly accurate; this validates the IPCC's model.
That's a pretty strong condemnation of the denier position.
And it is. The rest is usually pseudoscience, like creation science and other forms of denial.
Very often it amounts to arguing about facts. Denial is a great way to try to win an argument.
Syndromes of denial.
You never heard of political science?
Then please abandon it
Speak for yourself.
You mean: the disavowal of--and attacks on--science, by the Republican party, is not occurring within the Democratic Party....?
You mean--Republican/Tea Party/Creationist masters of deception?
Yes. The Republican/T.P. version, which denies evolution, replacing it with Genesis, and which denies global warming, replacing it with the Bible's admonishment that the earth was made for people to exploit, and which forbids stem cell research, thus tying together the aversion to to both abortion (stem cells) and science (research)--are all corrupt practices against science.
You mean the attacks against evolution, global warming and stem cell research are purely random.
The division is between science and pseudoscience, science and fundamentalism, science and denial. Manipulative indeed.
The polar ice caps and glaciers are melting. Species are disappearing. Spring is coming earlier each year. "Slightly" is your way of minimizing the seriousness of this.
Minimization of fact is not political spin?
Really? So the sunrise is not certain, because past history doesn't predict it? What theory do you call that? Other than denial, that is.
Yes, right here. I see what you mean.
You should know--you're selling it!
Except global warming came first, so there's no division coming from climate scientists. The division came later, decades later, with the anti-science denialists trashing scientific progress . Without their noise, this wouldn't even be a thread topic except maybe to discuss technical issues.
How do you interpret melting glaciers, disappearing wildlife, and earlier springs? It's happening now, by the way.
Let him who is without BS cast the first cowpie.
So far you've taken to smearing the objectivity and integrity of science
So stop doing it.
So be honest and stop slinging mud on science.
You are indeed digging a hole. But it's one you can't get out of. Same for the fundies. Normal people are watching the glacier cliffs fall into the sea and they're scratching their head at you.
A fact that can be checked according to how deeply you've dug your own hole.
No, the litmus test comes when Republicans/Tea Party are confronted by their apple trees budding in December. That will be the end of denial as we know it.
And of course, without humans the Earth's climate would be static and unchanging, forever and ever, amen. At least that's what white liberals fervently hope.
I file climate change stories away with others like SARS, the hole in the ozone layer, BSE/CJD, African Killer bees, acid rain, Y2K apocalypse, Ebola/flesh eating bacterias, global cooling, etc.. etc.. Media inspired panics used to control the liberal sheep (note to self: the recycling industry is worth $410 billion dollars globally and growing)
Incredibly, the examples being used by the left on this thread are all to do with socially driven 'science', such as racism and sexism and homophobia, as if these have some kind of existence in objective reality and don't undermine their own positions.
Above all, I love how this quote from the OP explicitly links climate change denial and race (whites) together. He stops short of saying blacks are noble savages living in a Eden-like paradise:
Without humans there would be no "amen". There would, however, still be geologic eras, the same eras that mark global changes for the nearly 4 billion year history preceding the emergence of humans from their common ancestor. You don't have to actually understand this too deeply. Just stand and admire the walls of Grand or Bryce canyons. Then try to figure it out. If possible, shoot for a science course or two. Education. Coming to your town soon. Be there or be square.
what's a white liberal?
Well that just about says it all doesn't it. Case closed. Class dismissed.
Examples from NOAA, NASA, National Academy of Sciences, etc. - pinkos one and all. Might as well run the hammer and sickle up the flagpoles wherever they lurk. See, if Joe McCarthy had just been given a chance to finish his work none of this would have ever happened. We'd be in a sort of redneck renaissance.
Dude. You've really got your finger on the pulse of meteorology.You know, they love it when you talk dirty over at those creation science boards. You could actually pawn this over there.
If only scientists weren't so determined, they might actually be undermined. In any case, your insights to objective reality are moving--like when Tammy Faye had mascara running down her cheeks. Back in the day. When men were men, and women were too.
read it again. . .this time read for meaning, not just phonics
Sure, I get that connection from what the OP actually said:
Do anything else but troll?
Explain why global warming science, divides down political party lines, if science is supposed to be objective to facts? This does not make any sense, since objective facts would break down independent of political party. I am not taking any side, but only pointing out the political connection to the divide. It would be like a snake oil or real cancer drug would not divide into liberal and conservative, but based on each unique personal situation with cancer.
The global warming divide is similar to other social engineering that was done via politics and liberalism. There are certain areas of science research which were made taboo or will be discredited as racists, sexists, homophobic, etc. What that does is limit all the possible open science data to a smaller desired set. The smaller set, will be true and good science, but the narrowed data sets is designed to reinforce the conclusion that was desired. In other words, the preponderance of the data supports the narrowed agenda by default.
Real science is not about feelings, but cold hard facts and objectivity. If the result hurts feelings that is not the goal of science. It is truth. When politics enters science, it became about protecting feelings even if that meant loss of objective science. The goal is to use only half of all possible data. This worked and the tactic used for other political purposes.
This partial data collection trick, tricks the liberals into "feeling" this is real science since guys and gals in white lab coats did indeed do it. The other side senses the foul play, with respect to the openness of real science (all the possible data even if it hurts feelings) and takes the counter position.
As an analogy, say I wanted science to prove that pigeons are the best bird in the universe (including all the alternate universes). First I attack anyone who does any science that likes other birds. I will call them pigeon-phobes until they back off enough to slant the total data collection in my favor. I then promote any science that tells me what I want to hear. When all is said and done, the preponderance of science data does indeed say the pigeon is the best bird. This limited data is based on good science, even if it does not express the entire science picture (rest ran scared or were bribed).
Now my pigeon lover political base is ready to defend this data, since it was done in an official science way. We leave out that we sabotaged all alternate science that would have allowed us to be fully objective. Not everyone is fooled by this. The objective people who won't back down, cry foul. The political leaders teach their pigeon lover base to attack them all bird hater creationists, since they wish to kill the pigeons.
That's one of the things the opening post of this thread talks about. Did you read it?
I did, after recidivist mangled your words. I had forgotten how exhaustively you had gathered and condensed all the bogus arguments (like you have also done in several other threads). It's probably one of the better constructed OPs than on any other site. Hopefully more people will notice it and maybe some of the words will actually sink in.
Partial data collection trick.
Thanks for parroting back to me what I said. At least you're beginning to accept that climate change is independent of human activity.
Consider your education started.
I love the need for validation by established authority.
You need to start reading between the lines. It's the ability to discriminate and discern the details which marks the quality of a mind.
It's interesting that in the OP, Robert Manne states vested economic interests as the primary reason for climate change denial, whilst conveniently forgetting the huge industries that have built up around recycling and 'clean energy' technologies... and also how such an ideology is being used as a weapon against developing countries to hinder their development, reduce their competitiveness and force them to invest in Western technology. It's a level of hypocrisy I've come to expect from Western liberals. There's a strong analogy with the Iraq war. Set up a situation of impending disaster (climate change/WMD), force action on the issue (new legislation/military invasion), supply the demand for Western products and services (clean energy/rebuild destroyed infrastructure).
The sickening facet is how privilidged, white, arm chair liberals deny their involvement in the world. Towards the end Manne describes himself:
If Manne is not concerned about losing his home comforts why not let climate change take its course?
Because he, more than most, is desperately calling for the West to assert its supremacy over the world, but in a typical, backhanded liberal fashion.
"how such an ideology is being used as a weapon against developing countries to hinder their development, reduce their competitiveness and force them to invest in Western technology"
Nonsense. Do you have an example? Because I've heard about small communities in Africa that don't have electricity but are now able to use sustainable sources of energy like solar and biogas to have light at night.
Of course it wouldn't. It has been changing since the Earth was formed.
And apparently the conservative sheep. That could be a list off the FOX News website.
Because science is objective - but politics is not. Environmentalism started as a primarily democratic movement. It didn't have to, but that's the way it turned out. There are a large group of people out there who simply oppose anything the other side supports without question - and thus republicans started opposing it.
That's not just true of environmentalism. It's true of energy, transportation, foreign policy, economics etc etc.
Agreed. Unfortunately deniers demand that science bends to their political desires. Their position is weakened if the data shows that the planet is gradually warming, so they deny it. They hope that by shouting loud enough they can drown out the science via the mass media. And by some of the threads posted here, they are having some success.
The conservative position is not limited to denying climate change. Some conservatives also deny evolution because they feel that evolution is a "liberal" science. They even deny some parts of geology because they feel it supports the "liberal" parts of evolution.
Exactly. And now the objective people are crying "foul" on the deniers.
Separate names with a comma.