anti-intellectualism

[devilsadvoc8]

LOL. All too often any skeptical comment towards current global warming "thought" is derided as PR/propaganda from big oil instead of understanding the argument's basis. So while oof and others would rather go the quick route and label someone or their thoughts, i'll explain a bit of my skepticism of Al Gore's raison d'etre.

1- I am not employed by a company that profits from fossil fuels nor do I own any stock in an oil company. Sure I own an S&P index of which oil companies are a part but I own nothing directly.

2- Would I like cleaner fuels? Sure I would. I don't care who comes up with them. Cleaner is better. I agree.

3- There appears to be solid evidence that global temperatures have risen in recent history. Just like there have been decreases in recent history.

4- I have yet to see (If you can show me the data/study I'd love to see it- I have an open mind) that definitively shows that CO2 emmissions have a high correlation as a LEADING indicator of global temperatures. In other words show me the direct link between man's CO2 emmissions and temperature. Sure there are graphs showing it but not statistical correlation that I have seen. Just because both have gone up doesn't mean causation. I have lost hair as global temperatures have risen, that doesn't mean that one causes the other, it may but it doesn't prove it.

5- As for the Gore camp's integrity? They are far from perfect. One only has to mention the faulty link to hurricanes, the faulty hockey stick graph, the photoshopped pictures and stories surrounding polar bears, the emails showing some degree of manipulation of data, the destruction of actual data from temperature collection devices leading us to rely upon "normalized" data observations, the use of the absolute crap projections regarding the Himalayas and snow in the UN report, the most recent gross overestimation of glacier retreat in Time's new atlas in Greenland to find that the there is some cause for concern over the conclusion that the recent increases in global temperatures are anthropogenic.

6- All the climate models I've seen have grossly overestimated actual global temperature increases in the past few years. Add that to their continued fear mongering over hurricanes every year (and missing) and you have a annual predictions that fall flat adding to their credibility.

7- There were a solid group of scientists who did indeed disagree with the IPCC and others and signed a public letter to that fact.

8- A nobel prize winning scientist just resigned from the American Physical Society over their position regarding global warming and human influence on it being "incontrovertible". If you say it enough I guess it will be true. While some in this thread espouse scientific methods, they are perfectly fine with absolutes that are very plainly not absolutes. I don't mind if a poster or some jackass on the street says that it is incontrovertible but any open minded scientist knows that few things whatsoever are "incontrovertible" in the scientific world. Adding such language to a scientific organization's platform is a prime example of Groupthink and a distinct lack of scientific skepticism.

So next time you summarily dismiss someone for having the "audacity" (where have I heard that word before) to challenge what we are being told to believe regarding climate change, think beyond your narrow viewpoint of assuming it is due to someone protecting big oil interests as there may be some actual thought behind it. I don't profit in any way from big oil so my skepticism of global warming has no profit motive other than being skeptical of regulations that are based on what I think is speculation which would indirectly and directly impact my wallet.

PS Squishy please do not bother doing one of your multiquote snippet responses to each sentence above since you and I have already gone over most of this in other threads. If, however, you have a link to a study which I request in #4 above, that is something I'd be very interesting in reading and absorbing.

[Pepperkorn]

Since 2005 I keep hearing a recycled report that the upcoming hurricane season will break the 2005 record. And every year that doesn't happen.

These types of things happen all the time. Did you know in the early 1800's (I believe 1815) a volcano erupted in Indonesia and spewed so much ash into the air that it formed a global haze over the entire planet where the summer temps we way below norm? It is often called the "Year without a Summer." This sh!t happens and they did not go about and claim that the earth is changing and we need to spend money to save it.

Also meteors hit the Earth all the time (more often than most people realize), but most are either small chunks that do not do much, hit in the middle of nowhere or in the ocean. Do we need to create a defense network then against meteors?

Haha! I was going to tell you the mini-ice age in Dickensian times was caused by the eruption of Kraktoa in the LATE 1800s - making your mini-ice age irrelevant to your argument. A very specific cause, out of line natural course. I'm kind of getting convinced you're not really familiar with the science behind this. but like I said that still doesn't invalidate your arguments.

non-renewable resources --bottom line climate change or no. What are you going to do about it? fvck 'em, not your problem. We will reach an inescapable truth - global warming or no.

[Microwavepizza]

Since 2005 I keep hearing a recycled report that the upcoming hurricane season will break the 2005 record. And every year that doesn't happen.

These types of things happen all the time. Did you know in the early 1800's (I believe 1815) a volcano erupted in Indonesia and spewed so much ash into the air that it formed a global haze over the entire planet where the summer temps we way below norm? It is often called the "Year without a Summer." This sh!t happens and they did not go about and claim that the earth is changing and we need to spend money to save it.

Also meteors hit the Earth all the time (more often than most people realize), but most are either small chunks that do not do much, hit in the middle of nowhere or in the ocean. Do we need to create a defense network then against meteors?

notice how i didn't mention Earthquakes, Volcanos and outer space situations? because they are not affected by humanity and the process of carbon in the air, they are out of our hands situations, when it comes to weather, we as humans can effect it negatively or positively by our actions

[Jerrydevil]

PK, what I am saying is a few things.

1) Green energy is often used a ruse for Democratic Party politicians to make money for their friends, grow the power of the federal government and gain votes by painting Republicans as oil-loving Earth haters.

2) Green energy is not ready for prime time. Oil is the lifeblood of the world's economy. The more we can produce here, the better off we are.

3) The government should not be subsidizing green energy. It was a big part of the last stimulus, and it was an utter failure. Wasted dollars. Government subsidies are not very appealing in general, but they are REALLY bad when the government fails to take into account free-market realities when they throw their support behind something (did someone say Solyndra?).

[Pepperkorn]

Ivar Giaever resigned about the word incontrovertible. You guys.... I know a couple of Nobel Prize winning scientists. it's weird how life is I know I know -- I know Dave Matthews and the SpinDrs and Andrew Lloyd Weber and dated the dude on NCIS -- on and on... lucky I guess.

you've got his resigning out of context. he's tried desperately to put it into context and -- it IS it's over one word. It's the WORD duDe -- not the issue at hand. It's not how you think.

I'm not condescending -- if anything scientists need to be condescended too on this stuff.. Aspergers -- say no more. I joke - but you've got -- rats! there is no putting this into the proper perspective.

I AM NOT A SMART PERSON! I AM UNEDUCATED!!! I am uneducated.

I'm just nonplussed. my head IS about to explode.

ehhh fvck it. we won't implode. life goes on humanity goes on. whatever.

Edited for D in dude -- that's just sad..." dude"...

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[Microwavepizza]

PK, what I am saying is a few things.

3) The government should not be subsidizing green energy. It was a big part of the last stimulus, and it was an utter failure. Wasted dollars. Government subsidies are not very appealing in general, but they are REALLY bad when the government fails to take into account free-market realities when they throw their support behind something (did someone say Solyndra?).

so then what should we do? throw up our hands and say "oh well, lets wait until the corps decide its time to invest in renewable" and leave it at that...

so what about in the early 20th century when the government subsidized tons of programs that made this country what it is today... there were plenty of free-market alternatives, but it had to be done... AND it worked

[Pepperkorn]

PK, what I am saying is a few things.

1) Green energy is often used a ruse for Democratic Party politicians to make money for their friends, grow the power of the federal government and gain votes by painting Republicans as oil-loving Earth haters.

2) Green energy is not ready for prime time. Oil is the lifeblood of the world's economy. The more we can produce here, the better off we are.

3) The government should not be subsidizing green energy. It was a big part of the last stimulus, and it was an utter failure. Wasted dollars. Government subsidies are not very appealing in general, but they are REALLY bad when the government fails to take into account free-market realities when they throw their support behind something (did someone say Solyndra?).

I love all you have to say whether I agree or not. I think you are needed! I completely see where you are coming from and you are really articulate and I really appreciate it. TOTALLY heartfelt! Please don't ever shut up!!

[Jerrydevil]

so then what should we do? throw up our hands and say "oh well, lets wait until the corps decide its time to invest in renewable" and leave it at that...

Yes. There has to be economic rationale behind it. There is none now. And the country is $14 trillion in debt. It should be an easy decision.

[Jerrydevil]

I love all you have to say whether I agree or not. I think you are needed! I completely see where you are coming from and you are really articulate and I really appreciate it. TOTALLY heartfelt! Please don't ever shut up!!

Thank you, PK! Did you notice in my avatar that we have a new member of the family? And my son started kindergarten this week (postponed two weeks because of the floods).

[DevsMan84]

How funny is that? I ALWAYS thought the vaccine stuff was complete crap. Absolutely NO scientific justification. All scientists were horrified at the irresponsibility of it all. It's good to see who it is you think is touting climate change. ... except -- you're anti-climate change data is as reliable as the anti-vaccine data. You're on the wrong side of the scientific fence on climate change if you're going to equate the two. You'd be the guy saying the danger of vaccine is very real because one guy's marginal study says so.

An interesting a telling analogy - but inconsistent with scientific consensus.

There is vast evidence that Climate change is not real but the media and the left-wing agenda reserves it for page 23 in the paper while scientists who agree with the Climate change platform get front page.

Plus do not bring in Nobel Peace prize winning scientists into this. The Nobel has become a joke. They gave one to that terrorist Arafat and one to Obama for doing.... well know one really knows why. I guess because he is a liberal?

[devilsadvoc8]

Ivar Giaever resigned about the word incontrovertible. You guys.... I know a couple of Nobel Prize winning scientists. it's weird how life is I know I know -- I know Dave Matthews and the SpinDrs and Andrew Lloyd Weber and dated the dude on NCIS -- on and on... lucky I guess.

you've got his resigning out of context. he's tried desperately to put it into context and -- it IS it's over one word. It's the WORD duDe -- not the issue at hand. It's not how you think.

I'm not condescending -- if anything scientists need to be condescended too on this stuff.. Aspergers -- say no more. I joke - but you've got -- rats! there is no putting this into the proper perspective.

I AM NOT A SMART PERSON! I AM UNEDUCATED!!! I am uneducated.

I'm just nonplussed. my head IS about to explode.

ehhh fvck it. we won't implode. life goes on humanity goes on. whatever.

Edited for D in dude -- that's just sad..." dude"...

I understand exactly why he resigned. I made no mention that he resigned due to any conflict on global warming policy per se. I noted the same word you did. The point is that the American Physics Society has made the leap that something like anthropogenic global warming is incontrovertible. It is the same fvcking issue we are talking here about talking in absolutes and calling the other side "a pet" instead of understanding their POV or taking the time to think that maybe just maybe there is doubt. He doesn't think it is incontrovertible. Gasp! You know what? I agree. You want a discussion of anti-intellectualism? I say it should be about too many people run this world (and post here) that make NO attempt to read anothers view or opinion but rather look at the issue through their own jaded worldview and make grand assumptions about the person and their "dissenting" opinion. You just proved that entire point. You may have read my post but clearly didn't even understand it because you rushed to a judgment which was colored by your opinion on global warming.

Edit for spelling errors.

Edited September 20, 2011 by devilsadvoc8

[DevsMan84]

I understand exactly why he resigned. I made no mention that he resigned due to any conflict on global warming policy per se. I noted the same word you did. The point is that the American Physics Society has made the leap that something like antropogenic global warming is incontrovertible. It is the same fvcking issue we are talking here about talking in absolutes and calling the other side "a pet" instead of understanding their POV or taking the time to think that maybe just maybe there is doubt. He doesn't think it is incontrovertible. Gasp! You know what? I agree. You want a discussion of anti-intellectualism? I say it should be about too many people run this world (and post here) that make NO attempt to read anothers view or opinion but rather look at the issue through their own jaded worldview and make grand assumptions about the person and their "dissenting" opinion. You just proved that entire point. You may have read my post but clearly didn't even understand it because you rushed to judgment regarding which was colored by your opinion on global warming.

Thank you finally!!! This post and your previous post pretty much sums up a bunch of my posts but you actually took the time to write down everything in detail as I cannot here at my work.

Thank you and finally some clarity amongst madness.

[Guest]

Ivar Giaever resigned about the word incontrovertible. You guys.... I know a couple of Nobel Prize winning scientists. it's weird how life is I know I know -- I know Dave Matthews and the SpinDrs and Andrew Lloyd Weber and dated the dude on NCIS -- on and on... lucky I guess.

you've got his resigning out of context. he's tried desperately to put it into context and -- it IS it's over one word. It's the WORD duDe -- not the issue at hand. It's not how you think.

I'm not condescending -- if anything scientists need to be condescended too on this stuff.. Aspergers -- say no more. I joke - but you've got -- rats! there is no putting this into the proper perspective.

I AM NOT A SMART PERSON! I AM UNEDUCATED!!! I am uneducated.

I'm just nonplussed. my head IS about to explode.

ehhh fvck it. we won't implode. life goes on humanity goes on. whatever.

Edited for D in dude -- that's just sad..." dude"...

So... she didn't go to wellesley after all.

[Pepperkorn]

I understand exactly why he resigned. I made no mention that he resigned due to any conflict on global warming policy per se. I noted the same word you did. The point is that the American Physics Society has made the leap that something like anthropogenic global warming is incontrovertible. It is the same fvcking issue we are talking here about talking in absolutes and calling the other side "a pet" instead of understanding their POV or taking the time to think that maybe just maybe there is doubt. He doesn't think it is incontrovertible. Gasp! You know what? I agree. You want a discussion of anti-intellectualism? I say it should be about too many people run this world (and post here) that make NO attempt to read anothers view or opinion but rather look at the issue through their own jaded worldview and make grand assumptions about the person and their "dissenting" opinion. You just proved that entire point. You may have read my post but clearly didn't even understand it because you rushed to a judgment which was colored by your opinion on global warming.

Edit for spelling errors.

DUDE! That was like a bad imitation of ME!!

No. Sorry boys, you two are just blowhard grandstanding gasbags You successfully shut yourselves out of productive conversation. Congratulations. Although to be fair as DM84 noted, he never ever made it to the podium.

So... she didn't go to wellesley after all.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[devilsadvoc8]

DUDE! That was like a bad imitation of ME!!

No. Sorry boys, you two are just blowhard grandstanding gasbags You successfully shut yourselves out of productive conversation. Congratulations. Although to be fair as DM84 noted, he never ever made it to the podium.

Really? This is your response?

Incoherent, non-sensical, incapable of responding to any specific items noted and resorted to what appears to be a lame insult: that equals a troll.

[DevsMan84]

Really? This is your response?

Incoherent, non-sensical, incapable of responding to any specific items noted and resorted to what appears to be a lame insult: that equals a troll.

Haha ever read any of her posts? That is pretty much 100% of them and then when you call her out on it, she backtracks and says she meant that sarcastically and/or joking.

[Pepperkorn]

So funny! I was just about to clarify... but not for you -- you deserve nonsense

Prof Giaever resigned about the word incontrovertible. In this particular thread we are using the word consensus. Consensus would be accurate. Jerry says yes fine you think that -- but that doesn't change his point. and I completely understand.

The reason advoc8 was dismissed from the conversation is because he said this was comparable -- that his whole point is that man's impact on climate change is not incontrovertible as people are writing in this thread. No one is saying that. Anyone reading the heart of the thread knows that point is in fact MOOT -- completely irrelevant from our discussion here. We've even taken climate change out of the equation as much as possible - it's something we were working with.

The word is so extraordinarily specific it's completely inappropriate for nearly ALL scientific discussion muchless research. That to a scientist is just plain insulting -- I totally understand where Giaver is coming from - a well respected scientist decided eff it all I'm going home, I'm too old for this sh!t. And I love it -- I love that about scientists.

Advoca8 to even compare himself to this guy - to our conversation -- is ridiculous. Advoc8 trying to claim anyone aside from himself is shutting out all sides and closed off to productive discussion -- it is to laugh.

The good part is he illustrated why I owe zeesquish an apology in the thread he started.

That was what my nonsensical response contained underneath it all. I always think my subtext is transparent regardless of how many times thoughtful helpful people here assure me otherwise

EDIT: Whoa -- just in case anyone thought otherwise, that last part was sincere and in no way directed toward DM84 who's always got his stubby self-righteous fingers running off on the keyboard and jammed in a post at the same time I originally posted this one.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[devilsadvoc8]

I suggest, PK, that you find some ESL courses to help you out with conversing with others on this board.

[Pepperkorn]

Thank you - thank you for your input there. Glad you understand how wrong you were now that I clarified

[DevsMan84]

I suggest, PK, that you find some ESL courses to help you out with conversing with others on this board.

Don't even bother with PK, the crazy cat lady of the board. She has seen me at a game (she saw me win sh!t) and I have yet to see her, yet she calls my fingers "stubby." Well PK get off your high horse and let's see you.

[Jimmy Leeds]

There was no debunked methodology, only more oil company PR/propoganda.

Politicians and interest groups that deny climate change is happening leaped on the Monnett suspension story. They are misleading the public by falsely discrediting scientific findings about the impacts of climate change on polar bears, even though BOEMRE has subsequently clarified that the suspension was not based on any concerns over Monnett’s published science, but rather on some-yet-to-be identified concerns over whether appropriate administrative processes were followed.

The facts remain that climate change is real.

Anti-intellectualism right here at it's finest.

Manta gets her talking points directly from MoveOn and DailyKos daily.

Empty skirt.

[oofrostonoo]

Anti-intellectualism right here at it's finest.

Manta gets her talking points directly from MoveOn and DailyKos daily.

Empty skirt.

Do you have anything intellectual to share? Perhaps a reputable study or piece of information that can show his feeble mind what the truth of the matter is?

Can you impart any of your wisdom on Charles Monnett or BOEMRE's actions?

DailyKos daily is redundant.

I need to hear something from someone with a full skirt.

Edited September 21, 2011 by oofrostonoo

[Pepperkorn]

OK -- I think the global warming thing is kind of clear for me. Politically speaking the credibility of man's impact on climate change is moot. fvck the future we need to worry about global economy now. In ways while ethically I disagree, the fact remains you cannot mandate clean energy effectively at this juncture.

Too many people have forgotten the 70s. Jerry - do you remember before emissions regulations came into play you almost NEVER saw NYC skyline from the Throgs Neck or Whitestone? We were in the process of moving from Long Island to Connecticut so, house hunting, we made the drive regularly 74-76. It took FOREVER to sell our house on Long Island obviously!!

Anyhow... the other OBVIOUS debate and I wonder if it's alive on this board...

Evolution is another scientific debate that I don't think one soul in the scientific community would claim incontrovertible. If you took the data supporting evolution and the data supporting man made climate change, man-made climate change wins hands down every time. So who here thinks evolution is malarky - the greatest con in the history of the world?

[devilsadvoc8]

OK -- I think the global warming thing is kind of clear for me. Politically speaking the credibility of man's impact on climate change is moot. fvck the future we need to worry about global economy now. In ways while ethically I disagree, the fact remains you cannot mandate clean energy effectively at this juncture.

Too many people have forgotten the 70s. Jerry - do you remember before emissions regulations came into play you almost NEVER saw NYC skyline from the Throgs Neck or Whitestone? We were in the process of moving from Long Island to Connecticut so, house hunting, we made the drive regularly 74-76. It took FOREVER to sell our house on Long Island obviously!!

Anyhow... the other OBVIOUS debate and I wonder if it's alive on this board...

Evolution is another scientific debate that I don't think one soul in the scientific community would claim incontrovertible. If you took the data supporting evolution and the data supporting man made climate change, man-made climate change wins hands down every time. So who here thinks evolution is malarky - the greatest con in the history of the world?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Masked Fan]

This thread is ignorant?