Hey, Where Did the Hockey Stick Go?? - Page 4

DVaut1 · #31 02-02-2007, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully not a hijack on my part. It seems that the "Global Warming" debate often pits the right vs. the left. Maybe its more big government vs. libertarian type positions, not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and by some strange coincidence, skeptics like Utah use the exact same talking points and buzz words like "junk science" that corporate propagandists (and the right-wing pundits they essentially hire) have meticulously crafted and disseminated to frame the debate.

Why do you think this became a seemingly partisan issue, adios?

adios · #32 02-02-2007, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Hopefully not a hijack on my part. It seems that the "Global Warming" debate often pits the right vs. the left. Maybe its more big government vs. libertarian type positions, not sure.

To be honest, it seems like those on the 'right' for the sake of this discussion those in favor of less restrained capitalism, instead of making arguments against regulation resulting from the science choose to attack the science itself.

Which is rather odd. One would think that those in favor of less restrained capitalism wouldn't really care much about the science and would argue that individuals or corporations should be able to decide themselves what to do with the conclusions drawn by scientists.

Rarely seems to be the case, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting thoughts, hadn't considered it that way and thanks for the response. Part of the disparaging may be due to the belief that academia has a left wing bias and thus the research that supports the idea which emerges from academia is suspect.

adios · #33 02-02-2007, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully not a hijack on my part. It seems that the "Global Warming" debate often pits the right vs. the left. Maybe its more big government vs. libertarian type positions, not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and by some strange coincidence, skeptics like Utah use the exact same talking points and buzz words like "junk science" that corporate propagandists (and the right-wing pundits they essentially hire) have meticulously crafted and disseminated to frame the debate.

Why do you think this became a seemingly partisan issue, adios?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure to be honest.

AlexM · #34 02-02-2007, 06:51 PM

Where did I say anything about the Middle Ages? Pre 600BC everyone thought it was flat.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying "but scientists once believed the Earth is flat" is just a canard which is supposed to portray the scientific community as somehow irrational and hysterical by fallaciously implying that the scientific community often believes things which end up being clearly contradicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about I say that 30 years ago scientists thought increased CO2 was going to cause global cooling instead? :P Admittedly, the percentage wasn't nearly as high as it is on the current theory, but it's right there.

DVaut1 · #35 02-02-2007, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully not a hijack on my part. It seems that the "Global Warming" debate often pits the right vs. the left. Maybe its more big government vs. libertarian type positions, not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and by some strange coincidence, skeptics like Utah use the exact same talking points and buzz words like "junk science" that corporate propagandists (and the right-wing pundits they essentially hire) have meticulously crafted and disseminated to frame the debate.

Why do you think this became a seemingly partisan issue, adios?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure to be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, given that corporations who might be held liable for global warming, politicians that cater to those corporations, and media pundits, media outlets, and think-tanks who either share the ideology of said politicians or are on the payroll of said corporations all mysteriously sound alike -- that is, they have strikingly similar talking points, buzzwords, and catch-phrases to voice their criticism of the vast majority of work done by scientists on global warming -- is it possible (gasp) -- is it possible there's some strategic coordination going on?

Dan. · #36 02-02-2007, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say anything about the Middle Ages? Pre 600BC everyone thought it was flat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Link please?

DVaut1 · #37 02-02-2007, 07:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say anything about the Middle Ages? Pre 600BC everyone thought it was flat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Link please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, also, I'd like to know which Pre 600BC scientists you're referring to Alex, specifically. I was under the impression there wasn't a whole lot of organized scientific inquiry going on then, making it impossible for you to deduce what the [censored] the general consensus was without just making it up.

Utah · #38 02-02-2007, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully not a hijack on my part. It seems that the "Global Warming" debate often pits the right vs. the left. Maybe its more big government vs. libertarian type positions, not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and by some strange coincidence, skeptics like Utah use the exact same talking points and buzz words like "junk science" that corporate propagandists (and the right-wing pundits they essentially hire) have meticulously crafted and disseminated to frame the debate.

Why do you think this became a seemingly partisan issue, adios?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make assumptions you shouldnt. I am not pro business, a conservative, a republican, or a supporter of the current adminstration. I would consider myself a huge advocate of protecting the earth. I think there are lots of things damaging the earth today (e.g, polution, destruction of reefs, depleting the oceans food supply, etc) that has nothing to do with global warming and I advocate strong action on these things. I would even argue that people need to make drastic changes to the way they live to combat these things. Originally, I loosely believed in global warming until I started doing some research on it and things did not remotely add up to valid science.

So, please do not lump me into the crowd you think I belong to. I used the word junk science because that is exactly what it is. Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks you should try to answer my simple question - how is releasing a summary for politicans without releasing the underlying data, methodology, studies, results, etc (and with the caveat that they will change the data to be consistent with the summary) ever considered anything but junk science? If it is not junk science then you task is simple and you can easily make me look stupid. All you need to do is provide the explanation of how the IPCC summary is considered to have used a valid scientific method and how they used a valid model (one not based in propoganda) for public dissemination of important information. But, of course you cant. So, my guess is you will ignore my challenge or engage in more ad hominem attacks because those are the only options available to you.

For bonus points - you can take a stab at why the holy grail of global warming, the hockey stick, is not in the summary?

AlexM · #39 02-02-2007, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say anything about the Middle Ages? Pre 600BC everyone thought it was flat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Link please?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

AlexM · #40 02-02-2007, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You make assumptions you shouldnt. I am not pro business, a conservative, a republican, or a supporter of the current adminstration. I would consider myself a huge advocate of protecting the earth. I think there are lots of things damaging the earth today (e.g, polution, destruction of reefs, depleting the oceans food supply, etc) that has nothing to do with global warming and I advocate strong action on these things. I would even argue that people need to make drastic changes to the way they live to combat these things. Originally, I loosely believed in global warming until I started doing some research on it and things did not remotely add up to valid science.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all applies to me as well.