|
Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
Cliff Notes: Scientific dogma sucks. Carbon levels may be manageable without cutting production. Sea levels may not rise due to warming. A warmer earth is better. Humanism FTW.
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
1. He looks like kind of silly
2. [ QUOTE ] In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. [/ QUOTE ] Anyone who's actually read the IPCC report (which is very few of the deniers), will realize that it's a non contentious document based on error ranges and levels of confidence. There are no: "this is what's going to happen". There are terms like "likely", "more likely than not", "very likely", representing percentage ranges of possible outcomes. There is a quantification of level of understanding with associated (very generous) error intervals. It is within these bounds that the comments about likely warming and likely causes are made, and I find them rigorous. So this clown is just doing some political spin. And what's up with this statment? [ QUOTE ] First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. [/ QUOTE ] In the first he seems to be agreeing that carbon dioxide will warm the atmosphere. In the second, he presents a false scenario - the indications are that global warming will intensify desertification in the Saharan region, NOT make it wet. So it's an irrelevant choice. |
The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
and I find them rigorous. [/ QUOTE ] Oh? They have not even been able to eliminate variable energy output from the sun or other natural causes and yet you find their conclusions....'rigorous'. Those nitwits can't explain the Ice Age nor the Medievil Warmimg Period. These nitwits can't even measure 'global' temperature correctly.....and yet you find their conclusions....'rigorous'. My....you have low standards.... http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html You swallow the Man-Causes Global Warming hype like candy without any understanding of the VAST-VAST amount of data necessary to even make a half-assed analysis. The Man-Causes-Global-Warming (MCGW) Cult has less than 1% of the needed data and they even manage to botch this data up (temp readings, Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick graph, etc....). Here is a REAL scientist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre In addition to busting Michael Mann, McIntyre discovered these nitwits calculated the global temps incorrectly.... |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive [/ QUOTE ] lol. |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
Felix_Nietsche, since you are so much smarter than the guys at NASA can you tell me what caused the error in the temperature graph and who was at fault? The answer is freely available on the internet.
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
1. He looks like kind of silly 2. [ QUOTE ] In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. [/ QUOTE ] Anyone who's actually read the IPCC report (which is very few of the deniers), will realize that it's a non contentious document based on error ranges and levels of confidence. There are no: "this is what's going to happen". There are terms like "likely", "more likely than not", "very likely", representing percentage ranges of possible outcomes. There is a quantification of level of understanding with associated (very generous) error intervals. It is within these bounds that the comments about likely warming and likely causes are made, and I find them rigorous. So this clown is just doing some political spin. And what's up with this statment? [ QUOTE ] First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. [/ QUOTE ] In the first he seems to be agreeing that carbon dioxide will warm the atmosphere. In the second, he presents a false scenario - the indications are that global warming will intensify desertification in the Saharan region, NOT make it wet. So it's an irrelevant choice. [/ QUOTE ] LOL, this "clown" is a genius of the first order. |
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, this "clown" is a genius of the first order. [/ QUOTE ] Then why is he making false statements and giving incorrect dichotomies? Perhaps he's trying to sell a book? He makes a few good points, however in general I think it's obvious that screwing with the climate system is a bad idea. Felix: [ QUOTE ] They have not even been able to eliminate variable energy output from the sun [/ QUOTE ] I debunked this last time and you didn't respond. Here it is again. Stop listening to your kook movies that are feeding you lies. The sun is NOT the cause of recent global warming. http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7...cledatapl4.png |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
Felix_Nietsche, since you are so much smarter than the guys at NASA can you tell me what caused the error in the temperature graph and who was at fault? [/ QUOTE ] Thank you for your confidence. I would not say I'm smarter than ALL of the guys at NASA. Perhaps I am only smarter than 99.85% of them. As for fault, it is NASA's fault. The GREAT Stephen McIntyre 'schooled' the so-called experts at NASA even without having their complete methodology which they refused to fully release. Forcing them to change their fraudulent data making 1934 the hottest year rather than 1998. It is a sad day for science when an amateur mathematician can outwit people in their own field.... But perhaps I give McIntyre too much credit. Outwitting climatologists who claim man-causes global warming it not that hard to do..... |
Mathematicians: 2...Climatologists: 0
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive [/ QUOTE ] lol. [/ QUOTE ] Yes it is pretty sad when an amateur mathemtician can outwit all the so-called experts at NASA and force them to revise their temperature data. Also McIntyre has the honor of exposing that fraud Micahel Mann and his fake hockey stick graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...28scientist%29 So lets check the score: Amateur Mathematicians: 2 Climatologists: 0 McIntyre has a shutout going for him!!!! So what can we learn from this? Having a PhD in climatology is equivalent to having a high school degree.... |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
Forcing them to change their fraudulent data made 1934 the hottest year rather than 1998. [/ QUOTE ] Can you please tell me exactly what was wrong with the data? Also, on a global scale which is hotter 1998 or 1934? The answers to both are freely available on the web. |
Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
debunked this last time and you didn't respond. Here it is again. Stop listening to your kook movies that are feeding you lies. The sun is NOT the cause of recent global warming. [/ QUOTE ] You have proved NOTHING.... Perhaps you have never taken a science or statistics class. Don't worry, I will educate you. To make an educated guess on cause-and-effect you must have sufficient data. Your miniscule 30 years of solar data is WORTHLESS. What you need is solar data of a MINIMUM of 1000 years. If we had solar data going back to 1050 AD during when Greenland use to be green....this would be useful. If we had solar data going back 20,000 years ago to the Ice age when parts of the USA/EUROPE were buried under 1-mile of ice....this would be useful. You are parroting other people's words without undertstanding the meaning. NO ONE has the even 1% of the data necessary to speak on the sun's role in global temperature variations. Sorry friend....it is you who is listening to kooks and spreading their lies... Now that I have educated you, you can stop making these silly claims that the sun has no involvement in any recent global warming.... The bottom line is no one knows..... More research is needed.... |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
Can you please tell me exactly what was wrong with the data? Also, on a global scale which is hotter 1998 or 1934? The answers to both are freely available on the web. [/ QUOTE ] I would be happy too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You can find the answer here: www.google.com |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can you please tell me exactly what was wrong with the data? Also, on a global scale which is hotter 1998 or 1934? The answers to both are freely available on the web. [/ QUOTE ] I would be happy too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You can find the answer here: www.google.com [/ QUOTE ] I know the answer. I'm simply trying to see if you know the answers. Again, the answers are freely available on the web. Or more importantly, if you are willing to admit the answer. |
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
The sun is NOT the cause of recent global warming. [/ QUOTE ] Uh, is it the moon then? |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
You have proved NOTHING.... [/ QUOTE ] We can measure levels of solar fluctuation very accurately. Apart from the fact that these fluctuations are fairly small over the short term, they also show that there is no support for the theory that the sun is causing the warming. In fact, it's pretty obvious it's not. [ QUOTE ] Perhaps you have never taken a science or statistics class. [/ QUOTE ] I have a degree in physics/math and have taken two semesters of meteorology, with time spent in a meteorology station. I don't claim to be an expert, but I understand the principles and arguments well enough. [ QUOTE ] Don't worry, I will educate you. To make an educated guess on cause-and-effect you must have sufficient data. Your minuscule 30 years of solar data is WORTHLESS. [/ QUOTE ] If the level of insolation and sunspot frequency has been steady or declining, then the hypothesis that the sun is causing the recent warming seems very silly on the face of it, especially when past fluctutations have caused no such effect. Wouldn't you agree? How precisely do you propose that the sun is causing this warming? Putting out magic warm-beams that we can't detect? |
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The sun is NOT the cause of recent global warming. [/ QUOTE ] Uh, is it the moon then? [/ QUOTE ] Warming: The process of becoming warmer, a rising temperature The sun is not the CAUSE of the RISING temperature. Thanks for the nit though, it's amusing. |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
We can measure levels of solar fluctuation very accurately. Apart from the fact that these fluctuations are fairly small over the short term, they also show that there is no support for the theory that the sun is causing the warming. In fact, it's pretty obvious it's not. [/ QUOTE ] Obvious? Perhaps you should publish this knowledge. You would win the Nobel prize in science. EASILY! There are numerous varibles which affect the global climate. All these variables must be understood before we can truly know the impact of solar variations. Solar output is just one factor. Hell, a single volcano explosion can cause HUGE changes in the weather with CONSTANT solar output. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer Your claim that it is OBVIOUS the sun does not cause recent warmings shows you lack understanding. You do *NOT* have the data to make such claims....... The difference between you and I is when I don't know something...I say so. You are on the other hand pretend that you do know. [ QUOTE ] I don't claim to be an expert [/ QUOTE ] We are in agreement here... But again, climate is such a complicated subject I don't think their is *ONE* expert on this planet. All we can do is take experts subfields and try to fit the puzzle together the best we can. So far the results have been quite disappointing... I would argue that we humans have regressed in our knowledge of global climate... [ QUOTE ] but I understand the principles and arguments well enough. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think so. If you have taken a freshman statistics course, then you will realize you can NOT make such claims about the relationship of solar variation and warming based on a miniscule 30 years of data.... But you are in good company. An army of PhD climatologists make similar claims... [ QUOTE ] If the level of insolation and sunspot frequency has been steady or declining, then the hypothesis that the sun is causing the recent warming seems very silly on the face of it, especially when past fluctutations have caused no such effect. Wouldn't you agree? [/ QUOTE ] No....I don't agree. I am educated enough not to make such claims on such a tiny amount of data.... However, 99% of climatologists have no qualms about about abandoning basic scientific principles in order to get their research grants. They are like Pavlovian rats pressing buttons to get their food pellets... [ QUOTE ] How precisely do you propose that the sun is causing this warming? [/ QUOTE ] I do not make such claims. I claim that more data is needed. The fact that the ice caps on Mars are melting has added credibility to the hypothesis that the sun COULD be the primary factor in recent global warming. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._southpole.htm Perhaps you will next claim that belching bovines and cement factories ended the Ice Age 20,000 years ago. Yes? Perhaps the Vikings invented the automobile in 900 AD causing Greenland to be green and allow the growing of crops? Yes? Perhaps you are like most climatologists and ignore the MOST IMPORTANT greenhouse gas......water vapor. yes? The arrogance of the MCGW (Man-Causes-Global-Warming) Cult is astonishing. The claims they make without having supporting data is mind-boggling to me. There is little difference between the ancient Greeks that invented Zeus, Hera, Apollo, etc... to explain their world and the modern day climatologist who seeks to explain our world. Human nature has not changed in 20,000 years. We are still a hyper-superstitious species... Our new satan is CO2. Our new high priest is Al Gore. Our original sin is taking a bite from the apple of technology. Sickening.... You are unknowingly a disciple of the dark side....I encourage you to join me in the land of light-and-reason. You won't get nifty govt research grants but you will sleep better at night...... Hmmmmm...well perhaps you won't sleep better. Some of these global warming nitwits have aggravated me to the point where it screws up my sleep.... Never mind, if you want to sleep better than don't listen to me..... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
I know the answer. I'm simply trying to see if you know the answers. [/ QUOTE ] I remmber playing this game as a child.... Two people going in circles wasting a lot of time. Wouldn't it just be easier to state your point? Instead of playing this game? |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
However, 99% of climatologists have no qualms about about abandoning basic scientific principles in order to get their research grants. They are like Pavlovian rats pressing buttons to get their food pellets [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] McIntyre was the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003 [/ QUOTE ] LOL!!! |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
You won't get nifty govt research grants but you will sleep better at night...... [/ QUOTE ] Do you think there are any people that will benefit financially by denying that man causes global warming? |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
Interesting that Dyson starts his article with a philosophical argument. This is never a good sign in a science paper. I am a pretty big fan of Dyson or atleast his work in QED. Since then he has spent alot of time on space colonization and things outside of the main stream so I guess his view on this is not that surprising.
|
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think there are any people that will benefit financially by denying that man causes global warming? [/ QUOTE ] People don't work for free..... People of both sides of this issue get paid. However, there is more money in supporting man-cause global warming theories. The figure I heard was in the ballpark of 20 billion versus 30 million. With the 20 billion being the money paid by disciples of the MCGW (Man-Causes-Global-Warming) cult and 30 million being paid by private industry. Private industry is in the business of providing goods and services and they will NEVER be able to provide the research money the govt can. The govt has deeper pockets... So there is more money to be made by towing the party line that man causes global warming... The research money that govt provides can be used like a club to reward and punish people.... It is hypocrtically for the MCGW Cult to attack doubters for being paid when they are getting paid as well.... They are forced to do so because science is not on their side..... |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
Hell, a single volcano explosion can cause HUGE changes in the weather with CONSTANT solar output. [/ QUOTE ] We're not talking about volcanoes - we're talking about the specific claim that you and others made that the sun is the cause of recent warming. There is zero evidence for that claim, and on the face of it appears contradicted by the data. [ QUOTE ] then you will realize you can NOT make such claims about the relationship of solar variation and warming based on a miniscule 30 years of data [/ QUOTE ] When there's a well understood mechanism, we generally can. You don't get simpler than the amount of insolation, and the number of sunspots/solar flares. None of these items appear to correlate with any temperature readings that we have. BTW, you mention education and understanding of statistics. I wonder what the ratio of (science/math eduction) : (global warming denier/proponent) is. I'd bet that on this board, it's highly in favor of the proponents. If you want to pull that card, I think you're doing yourself a disservice. |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
We're not talking about volcanoes - we're talking about the specific claim that you and others made that the sun is the cause of recent warming. [/ QUOTE ] How can we have a rational discussion when you falsely state my position? My position is the MCGW cult can NOT eliminate variable solar output as a cause behind global climate changes.... If you find a person that claims this with only 30 years of data...then argue with them...not me.... [ QUOTE ] When there's a well understood mechanism, we generally can. You don't get simpler than the amount of insolation, and the number of sunspots/solar flares. None of these items appear to correlate with any temperature readings that we have. [/ QUOTE ] It is a waste of time to base any conclusions for or against based on 30 years of solar data. Waste your time if you like, but I am educated enough not to make the same mistake.... [ QUOTE ] None of these items appear to correlate with any temperature readings that we have. [/ QUOTE ] <Sigh> You are *STILL* trying to make conclusions on 30 years of solar data? It is OK to say, "I don't know". [ QUOTE ] BTW, you mention education and understanding of statistics. I wonder what the ratio of (science/math eduction) : (global warming denier/proponent) is. I'd bet that on this board, it's highly in favor of the proponents. If you want to pull that card, I think you're doing yourself a disservice. [/ QUOTE ] Who knows.... Taking a class is one thing... Applying the knowledge is completely different. As I pointed out, Stephen McIntyre humilated the so-called 'experts' at NASA and that fraud Michael Mann. Like I said before: Amateur mathematicians: 2 PhD Climatologists: 0 |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
I have a degree in physics/math and have taken two semesters of meteorology, with time spent in a meteorology station. I don't claim to be an expert, but I understand the principles and arguments well enough. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe you could answer this question for me, then..... If there is a body of water and the air temperature goes up, what happens to the rate of evaporation of that body of water? |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
It increases of course.
|
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
Ok, it increases.
That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then? |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, it increases. That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then? [/ QUOTE ] perhaps you should just get to your point. |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
I want to be absolutely certain that the logic by which I get there is agreed on.
|
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
I want to be absolutely certain that the logic by which I get there is agreed on. [/ QUOTE ] O |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I want to be absolutely certain that the logic by which I get there is agreed on. [/ QUOTE ] O [/ QUOTE ] K |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, it increases. That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then? [/ QUOTE ] yes |
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ok, it increases. That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then? [/ QUOTE ] perhaps you should just get to your point. [/ QUOTE ] I know where he's going, and it's an interesting discussion. No harm in playing along. |
He\'s an oil company tool I\'ll tell ya. (n/m)
......
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. He looks like kind of silly 2. [ QUOTE ] In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. [/ QUOTE ] Anyone who's actually read the IPCC report (which is very few of the deniers), will realize that it's a non contentious document based on error ranges and levels of confidence. There are no: "this is what's going to happen". There are terms like "likely", "more likely than not", "very likely", representing percentage ranges of possible outcomes. There is a quantification of level of understanding with associated (very generous) error intervals. It is within these bounds that the comments about likely warming and likely causes are made, and I find them rigorous. So this clown is just doing some political spin. And what's up with this statment? [ QUOTE ] First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. [/ QUOTE ] In the first he seems to be agreeing that carbon dioxide will warm the atmosphere. In the second, he presents a false scenario - the indications are that global warming will intensify desertification in the Saharan region, NOT make it wet. So it's an irrelevant choice. [/ QUOTE ] LOL, this "clown" is a genius of the first order. [/ QUOTE ] QFT Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. |
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I know the answer. I'm simply trying to see if you know the answers. [/ QUOTE ] I remmber playing this game as a child.... Two people going in circles wasting a lot of time. Wouldn't it just be easier to state your point? Instead of playing this game? [/ QUOTE ] Actually it is much easier to play the game. All you need to do is type the warmest global year to answer one question. That is much less effort than this dialogue. The fact that I'm now my fourth post in and you still refuse to answer the questions should be rather telling of your intent. I will ask one more time. Question #1: What year is warmer on the global scale: A) 1998 B) 1934 There, I've made it super easy for you. All you need to do is press one key to answer the question. It's either A or B. The next question is a test to see how well you understand the situation. Question #2: What exactly when wrong in the analysis of the most recent dataset? It's a simple question and the correct answer can be given in one easy sentence. Again, the answers to both questions are freely available on the web. The answers you give will be good indicators of your competence and honesty as there is only one simple answer to each question. |
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become. |
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become. [/ QUOTE ] Wow that is a slanted restatement of the quoted paragraph. Scrutiny should increase the closer we get to policy decision and investment. In any semi-open political system contention and lobbying will also increase. |
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become. [/ QUOTE ] Wow that is a slanted restatement of the quoted paragraph. Scrutiny should increase the closer we get to policy decision and investment. In any semi-open political system contention and lobbying will also increase. [/ QUOTE ] I agree scrutiny should increase. However, the vast majority of what makes it to mainstream media is not legitimate scrutiny. Recent claims that NASA was hit by a Y2K bug or that the correction to the most recent dataset debunks global warming is anything but constructive scrutiny. Serious scrutiny (which does exist) rarely makes it into headlines or even this forum. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.