Man-made Global Warming debate stifled by censorship & intimidation

Flopping Aces ^ | 07-09-08 | Mataharley

[Starman417]

Flopping Aces threads on global warming invariably strike the debate chord. They are a study in one-upmanship, chock full of quotes from supporting links, studies and articles. But our debate always suffers from one fatal flaw… that is the starting point of our respective opinions.

Our commonality is we all believe the climate is, and always has, changed. The disagreement begins when we discuss whether that change is significantly connected, or caused by man releasing gaseous emissions into the atmosphere.

In this respect, I felt it a worthy post to dedicate a thread to the so-called "consensus" on AWG (or Anthropogenic Global Warming)… or also oft put as “settled science”. And for this, I give a big H/T to Mike’s FA thread, Another Global Warming Lie Bites the Dust”, which has endured days of lively and, for the most part, civil debate.

Also, H/T's to both commenters Dave Noble and Aye Chi, inspiring me while trading good-humored barbs about “consensus”. Or perhaps best summarized by Dave on that thread as:

Your closing statement is a dogmatic assertion because it is unsupported by facts. Similarly, it is now up to you to provide supporting facts, or to knowingly fail to do so. Otherwise our conversation degenerates into a meaningless (and boring) do-loop of:

“There is a scientific consensus” “No, there isn’t” “Yes, there is” “No, there isn’t”

That was post #17, and by the time post #88 (as of this composition) had been completed, the challenges were met, more made, and arguments arose based on which source was deemed more expert, and thereby more credible.

Voila… da lightbulb appears - and not the compact fluorescent version. Just why is it none of us can agree on this simple starting point for debate? I'm going to use many of Dave's cogent points because they bring up some of the base points of contention. Not pickin' on ya, guy.

i.e. Dave Noble exudes great confidence in this “consensus” belief by saying:

The Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all agree that that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.

Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.

I'm not sure what standards Dave has for these institutions over another. But if it's supposed to be based on unbiased conjecture, or where they derive their funding, then that's where I'm going to battle. I've learned enough over time on what institutions do to placate those who deliver grants. Bias, when it comes to financial survival of institutions, runs both ways.

And as you can see by my post’s title, I not only believe there is NO “consensus” or “settling” of the science, but I’m extremely un'settled that a premature decision has been made... signed, sealed, delivered - case closed. Darken the theatres and run the trailers. No late comers are allowed entry...

Indeed, there is a very disturbing pattern that shows any debate on previous data is being deliberately thwarted and/or quashed, and nothing new is allowed to be added.

My brief mention of this censorship was, perhaps, misunderstood... construed by Dave as "conspiracy". First off, I'm not speaking of our own lay debates, but public disclosure of the ongoing battles between the experts even now. And conspiracy isn't the word I would use. The lack of credibility given to opposing views is boldy overt and deliberate - far from conspiratorial. They can afford to be bold, because they have orchestrated a very successful propaganda and intimidation campaign which allows them, obviously, to be above question.

Dave does say he will “trust the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process. Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.” It is from this old school belief in the separation of science, ideology and politics that I begin an ugly tale of intimidation and censorship. Or perhaps better put, the morphing of the science community into political and policy activists.

Robert M. Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote the best one-stop-shopping article on this intimidation campaign in March 2007. So I’ll use this as the focal point, and add supporting data from there.

And our first jumping off point will be the obvious… Yes, I am anticipating the cry of “foul” by using a man who’s expertise as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist also happens to be invaluable in research for oil exploration and extraction.

So first up is the intimidation/McCarthyism campaign: vilifying the naysayers as biased sources.

For the treatment of global warming “skeptics” has long been characterized by attempts to discredit their views and challenge their integrity using ad hominem attacks. In particular, there is an absolute obsession with allegations that industries or interest groups may be paying or offering non-monetary inducements to climate skeptics.

Snip

Mr. Mooney, the AGU, and bedfellows like George Monbiot and Ross Gelbspan, completely miss the point that truth in science does not depend upon who pays for it. The key question is not “where is the money coming from” but “is the science sound”.

George Monbiot, author of the novel, Heat, runs an activist campaign using both website and internet media against what he calls “climate criminals”. One such example of his accusations includes his 8 minutes YouTube video, assailing advertisements or studies who benefited from Exxon funding.

Again, Mr. Carter’s statement bears repeating:

…. truth in science does not depend upon who pays for it. The key question is not “where is the money coming from” but “is the science sound”.

Note that Monbiot doesn’t dispute the actual information, but merely casts sinister shadow over the source of funding.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

NASA has confirmed that Jupiter, Mars and Pluto are all experiencing Global warming?

How?

Undoubtedly humans are drilling for oil and building coal-fired power plants on those planets.

The Astronomy Picture of the Day, may 23rd, 2008, has the info on Jupiter

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

Jupiter is experiencing global warming.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Yes, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and even Triton are experiencing Global Warming.

Must be Anthropogenic in nature....

<sarc

[Red Dog #1]

Better headline:
Man Made Global Warming Scam Perpetuate by Censorship and Distortion.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Spok]

Man caused global warming is one of the most brilliant and insidious scams in human history. Imagine if you could convince a significant number of people that every natural, inconvenient phenomenon was due to nefarious activity by your political adversaries? It cleverly focuses animus for natural events on people you don’t like, costs nothing and requires no effort to precipitate, and endlessly feeds hatred and derision against your foes. The only downside is that your political constituency would be populated exclusively by morons, but the power you could wield would nonetheless be real.

[pleikumud]

We never hear key facts. For example, the primary “evil” greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, but it’s only present in trace amounts in the atmosphere = 380 parts per million. The major “greenhouse gas” is actually water vapor. Politicians of both major parties would have us believe that man-made climate change is a big deal. But it’s really “political science”.

[CedarDave]

See this thread:

"Not Evil, Just Wrong - The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria"

[Nateman]

I figure the true test of any warming is ocean level rising. The level is rising but the rate is so slow that even if it was man made it's something we can live with.

Another point these people never make is that Carbon Dioxide is a fertilizer for plants. They must have it in order to grow. This in turn leads to more, not less, life on Earth. Carbon Dioxide emissions are therefore GOOD for the environment, not bad.

[Nateman]

Man caused global warming is one of the most brilliant and insidious scams in human history.

Calling your enemy a witch thereby getting them killed I think ranks higher on the scam scale, but replace "Official Priest" with "Official Scientist" and it becomes clear history is once again repeating itself.

[GOPJ]

...there is a very disturbing pattern that shows any debate on previous data is being deliberately thwarted and/or quashed, and nothing new is allowed to be added.

Earmarks of a scam...

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Anyone who says (about any scientific topic): "the science is settled"; or "the debate is over" -- is not a real scientist.

He may or may not be a moron -- those statements alone provide insufficient data to make that determination.

He may or may not be an eco-fascist. If he actively tries to shut down debate; he's likely a fascist. If the topic concerns ecology, and he actively tries to shut down debate; he's likely an eco-fascist.

Even if he's neither a moron, nor a fascist -- he's certainly unqualified to discuss scientific issues.

Unfortunately, many Gorebots are moronic eco-fascists.

[San Jacinto]

Some people believe that solar activity plays an important role in the condition of earth’s climate, but these “Sun warms the earth” people are generally regarded as crackpots by the more well informed, who understand that lawnmowers and BBQ grills are much more influential on earth’s temperature than is the far away sun.

[Thickman]

Some people believe that solar activity plays an important role in the condition of earth’s climate, but these “Sun warms the earth” people are generally regarded as crackpots by the more well informed, who understand that lawnmowers and BBQ grills are much more influential on earth’s temperature than is the far away sun.

That's sarcasm, right? ;-)

[dennisw]

We never hear key facts. For example, the primary “evil” greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, but it’s only present in trace amounts in the atmosphere = 380 parts per million.
____________________

A better way to phrase that is 3.8 parts per 10,000.

Or round it off and say 4 parts per 10,000

[supercat]

“There is a scientific consensus” “No, there isn’t” “Yes, there is” “No, there isn’t”

Few debates are more silly than an argument over whether consensus exists on a subject. If the argument exists, consensus does not.

[supercat]

Another point these people never make is that Carbon Dioxide is a fertilizer for plants. They must have it in order to grow. This in turn leads to more, not less, life on Earth. Carbon Dioxide emissions are therefore GOOD for the environment, not bad.

That's probably another reason liberals want to ban it. Liberals don't want to admit that it's possible to achieve a world where their economic theories don't hold water (liberal theories only hold for subsistence-level economies). Thus, they need to cripple all production to make the world fit their mold.

(nb: to those infected with Liberal Mind Fog, when the real world disagrees with their understanding, that implies that the world, rather than their understanding, is mistaken)

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Few debates are more silly than an argument over whether consensus exists on a subject. If the argument exists, consensus does not.

Bingo.

And no one is seeking consensus over say gravity. You do not need to have consensus over something that you can prove with repeatable testing under lab conditions. You don't need consensus over something that is provable mathematically.

You only need consensus over academic wild goose chases you are trying to get funding for.

[SunkenCiv]

Climate Change Delusion
Capital Research Center | July 9, 2008 | Matthew Vadum
Posted on 07/09/2008 5:34:49 PM PDT by vadum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2043175/posts

India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears
Inhofe EPW Press Blog | July 9, 2008 | Marc Morano
Posted on 07/09/2008 3:38:40 PM PDT by EPW Comm Team
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2043120/posts

(India) PM spurns G8 plan on emission cuts
India Infoline News Service | July 9, 2008 | N/A
Posted on 07/09/2008 2:46:57 PM PDT by NRG1973
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043090/posts

[SunkenCiv]

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·