When Science Becomes Treason > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Local Personal Posts > A CALL TO ACTION!

Subject: When Science Becomes Treason

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

07/20/2007 2:03 PM
At the end of this article is a link to a British movie which highly critical of anthrophomorphic global warming. When Science Becomes "Treason" By Senator Tom McClintock CAPoliticalNews.com \| July 20, 2007 http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is not some deranged nutcase standing barefoot on a street corner babbling to himself about the end of the world. He is one of the leading voices of the environmental Left, he heads a major environmental organization and during the 2003 recall election, he served as one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s chief environmental advisors. So his remarks at one of Al Gore’s Live Earth rallies on Saturday should be taken seriously. During his six minute speech, Kennedy referred to those who question the theory that humanity is causing the earth’s changing climate as “liars,” “crooks,” “corporate toadies,” “flat-earthers” and made this remarkable statement: “This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.” The irony is that this is the same movement that wraps itself in pseudo-science, and yet declares that those who challenge their theory on scientific grounds “are on a par with Holocaust deniers” (as Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in February) and now, traitors. The Left has taken science, which is founded on a rigorous and dispassionate evaluation of fact and an equally vigorous and open debate of theory, and perverted it into a shrill, self-righteous and utterly intolerant intellectual tyranny. And like all authoritarian movements, it doesn’t take long for a tyranny of the mind (“global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”) to transform itself into a tyranny of brute force (“This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors.”) What does this say about the global warming movement? One would have thought that Al Gore, whose latest book is entitled The Assault on Reason and who sponsored the event at which Mr. Kennedy spoke, would immediately disassociate himself from these remarks. But six days later, Gore’s silence has said volumes. And if this was mere rhetorical excess, why has Kennedy said nothing to clarify his extraordinary declaration? When some of the most accomplished and reputable scientists on the planet in the fields of climatology, meteorology and solar physics all vigorously challenge the global warming doctrine, how can anyone who respects science and the scientific method declare the debate is over and that all dissenters are “traitors?” Global warming doctrine cannot withstand scientific inquiry or open debate, and they know it. And that’s why they believe that dissent must be ridiculed, bullied, suppressed and eradicated. After all, it was the “flat-earthers” who, in the Dark Ages, declared the debate on the origins of Earth to be over and scientific inquiry to be heresy. It was the men of science who welcomed a full debate over all aspects of human knowledge, secure in the belief that reason would ultimately prevail in any free debate. Speaking of which, there is a BBC production on the subject that devastatingly deconstructs the theory of human-induced global warming – the best that I’ve seen. I guarantee it will be an hour well spent, and you can watch it on your computer by clicking http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/21/2007 10:32 PM
Global warming doctrine cannot withstand scientific inquiry or open debate, and they know it. Such a grand statement. If you truly believe it, I'm sure you will have no trouble whatsoever of having a discussion with me on the subject. What are your objections? I will answer them as best I can. With regard to your movie, it is actually one of the worser ones, and has already been analysed and responded to. Here is one: http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm Finally, I will close with a general assault on your logic: You attempt to argue that because a significant number X of scientists doubt global warming, therefore the debate is not over. You then go on to state that global warming cannot withstand scientific inquiry. However, there appears to also be a significant number of scientists (either at or exceeding X) that defend it, seemingly indicating that it does withstand some form of scientific inquiry. Hence, if you are going to make an argument from popularity in one instance, if you truly believe the argument, then your own logic seems to go against you. Furthermore, you have attacked anyone who concurs with global warming by saying that they wish to stifle any free debate. While such a categorical statement is disproven by one example (Me being that example), your argument doesnt really seem to particularly flow: You have pointed out a non-scientist who said something at a concert, and the context of the statement itself seems to indicate he was referring to those who would put their financial interests ahead of the interests of the American people (Note: This is the statement in question: "The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D. C. Who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company, these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interests and ahead of the interests of all of humanity. This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors."). Hence, you have yet to demonstrate that scientists themselves are making this charge, and you have yet to demonstrate that a statistically valid and large sample of them are doing so, and therefore your attempt at discrediting the personalities of various people fails because you have failed to actually discredit them. In addition, it is a wholly invalid attack, incorrect, for the claims should be evaluated on their own merits rather than evaluated based on who is giving them. If a man goes up to you and says "Two plus two equals four, and if you disagree, you are a traitor!", this may make him a rash person, but obviously it doesn't serve as proof that two plus two does not equal four. It does seem doubtful that you will actually respond, but I at least want to extend to anyone who reads this thread that Mr. Gunrights is not giving both sides of the position, and if he refuses to engage in a debate, it seems likely that his refusal would be because he has no defence of his position, but rather offers it in an attempt to drum up support for his ideology or party.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/21/2007 10:56 PM
Come on. Everybody knows that science becomes treason when the scientists start building an army of mindless robots with which to make war on the government. This, of course, leads to the inevitable point where they start taking the brains out of zombies and put them in the (no longer mindless) robots to create a race of super robot-zombies. On a serious note, there are several questions that I have heard that I find relevant in the global warming discussion, most of which are not really ever addressed. Is the earth getting warmer? (It is impossible for a person to gauge this based on their own personal observations and anecdotal evidence since the reported rises in temperature are on the order of 1° per century. That is why all good global warming science looks at average temperature trends worldwide over decades or longer.) Are humans causing the rise in temperature? (Are carbon emissions really causing the changes in temperature? What about the proliferation of domesticated animals such as cows, which I suppose is arguably still human-caused? Could this just be a result of the natural fluctuations in the amount of sunlight striking the planet?) Is there anything that we can do about it? (Can reducing or offsetting carbon emissions make a difference? Is there some plan that humans can deploy that could put a dent in the warming, or even slow down the rate of warming? Would such measures be cost-effective, even in light of the apocalyptic consequences of inaction?) Ultimately, I think that the most important question is the third one. It's also the hardest to answer since it is not a question merely of science, but also of any number of disciplines such as economics and politics. While I can see the sense in the Pascal's Wager that environmentalists make (after all, what harm is there in doing something, if it might help avert catastrophe in the future?), I am inclined to observe that the amount of energy contained in the heat and motion of the atmosphere and oceans is staggeringly more than we can really appreciate, and ultimately far more than we can hope to control in any meaningful way. As Yakko once said, "It's a great big [world] and we're all really puny."

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/22/2007 12:09 PM
Is the earth getting warmer? Yes. I don't think there is any disagreement on this point, even among skeptics. Are humans causing the rise in temperature? This seems quite likely, but it isn't 100% certain. (Are carbon emissions really causing the changes in temperature? What about the proliferation of domesticated animals such as cows, which I suppose is arguably still human-caused? Could this just be a result of the natural fluctuations in the amount of sunlight striking the planet?) Carbon emissions, when you look at the atmosphere, make up a fairly small portion of such. In fact, the largest "greenhouse gas" is water vapour. However, carbon emissions, when put into the atmosphere, do not have a quick and easy way to get back out: If we dump huge amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere, the atmosphere has a natural system by which to keep the cycle moving (precipitation). Hence, carbon emissions are quite good for global warming. The proliferation of such animals would be human caused, of course, and they do contribute significantly to certain greenhouse gasses. The natural variation of the sun does seem to have something to do with it, but it cannot explain the difference entirely: Indeed, it doesn't seem to explain much of the difference at all. A very recent study has shown that the Sun's effects do not have a significant relation on global warming, as the data indicates that the Sun's output has declined in the last 20 years, whereas temperatures have gone up. (Can reducing or offsetting carbon emissions make a difference? Is there some plan that humans can deploy that could put a dent in the warming, or even slow down the rate of warming? Would such measures be cost-effective, even in light of the apocalyptic consequences of inaction?) Well, reducing carbon emissions would make a fairly large difference. I, however, know of no other "plans of action" to put a dent in global warming. Is there anything that we can do about it? In theory, of course there is. In practice, it seems unlikely. As you say, this specific question isn't about just environmental science, but rather involves things like politics, and anything that involves politics becomes needlessly complex I am inclined to observe that the amount of energy contained in the heat and motion of the atmosphere and oceans is staggeringly more than we can really appreciate, and ultimately far more than we can hope to control in any meaningful way. We are talking about a very small change in temeprature here, and a very small amount of energy, and when you look at it "objectively" the effect on the Earth won't be that great. However, humans are very used to the present conditions of the planet, and so even a small change in heat can make life less comfortable for us. It isn't a matter of "controlling the planet" - we are probably tens of centuries away from being able to completely regulate the environment - but it is a matter of cutting back on what is likely caused by us that will make life more difficult for us.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

07/22/2007 2:07 PM
During our last argument, when I tried to state my understanding of your argument, you accused me of engaging in a straw man technique. Simply, because I placed an article and movie for others to view doesn't necessarily mean that I one hundred percent share the viewpoints expressed. What I really have a problem with, is the very one sided coverage of this debate by the press and "true believers". Journalism, is supposed to be balanced. More and more it has become an avenue of advocacy. The coverage is very one sided and in my opinion ridiculous. Such statements like "the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man caused global warming" and such things are absurd. Who exactly conducted this census? Even if this were true this kind of argument serves no purpose in scientific debate. History is full of commonly held beliefs which have later been proved incorrect. Science is about arguing about facts and reason. True believers have become increasingly shrill in their arguments. Kennedy's statement that those of us doubters are guilty of treason is absurd and renders such people as to have little credibility. Comparing us doubters to "holocaust deniers" is another really rich one. The film is no different in technique than Al Gore's film. Each argues from a one sided position. The big difference is that in the US this film (as far as I know) has received little or no coverage, whereas Al Gore's is literally being crammed down students throats. You have been granted your own web site, yet you have not used it yet. Why is that? I have not made up my mind on this issue. I have yet to read an overwhelming argument or data which ends the debate. You on the other hand seem to be firmly in the anthropomorphic camp. You and I can trade articles all day long to support one point or another. There is great disagreement here!!! The earths climate is an amazingly complex system. When you combine that with long time frames it increasing complexity grows exponentially. Climatology is not my area of expertise or study. Is it yours? If I could trust that I would be arguing with you than that would be one thing. What would more likely happen, is that you would research articles which support your viewpoint and ask me to read them. This is very time consuming. Whatever the cause, I have very serious doubts about the governments on earth willingness to respond accordingly. Kyoto has been a dismal failure. When it comes to reducing the standard of living, few people would be willing to do so based upon theories. The other issue is whom am I debating. Is it just scientific thought, environmental activists or a combination? Gore, Kennedy, Hansen all haver a significant bully pulpit and are relevant to the debate. Do you content that your experience/training qualify you to conduct an objective debate on this issue?

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/22/2007 5:27 PM
During our last argument, when I tried to state my understanding of your argument, you accused me of engaging in a straw man technique. If I did so, I apologise. I should note that you shut off that debate, and thus I wasn't particularly inclined to believe that you were engaging in a rational debate. . Such statements like "the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man caused global warming" and such things are absurd. Who exactly conducted this census? Even if this were true this kind of argument serves no purpose in scientific debate. History is full of commonly held beliefs which have later been proved incorrect. While I believe there have been studies on the subject, the endorsements of the various science academies of the different nations and other private organisations may lead one to believe that global warming, at the very least, is endorsed by much of the scientific community. It is true that in a scientific debate, numbers do not particularly serve as an argument. That is to say, we cannot say "X number of people think Y, therefore Y". However, the argument put forth here is not one ad populum. Rather, the argument put forth is that the evidence is convincing enough that, in our modern system of peer review and such, the evidence itself has lead people who have trained in this sort of thing to then affirm global warming. Given that it is impossible to specialise in absolutely everything, this argument (inductively) can be valid and sound. You have been granted your own web site, yet you have not used it yet. Why is that? I'm actually working on a real website, since someone generously offered me some space. Being completely ignorant on the finer points of website construction, however, I am shopping around for someone else to do it. Is it yours? No. What would more likely happen, is that you would research articles which support your viewpoint and ask me to read them. I would ask you to read the opinions of various scientists, which I suppose amounts to the same thing. . Is it just scientific thought, environmental activists or a combination? I am not an environmentalist - I believe that the environment should be used for human purposes and has no intrinsic quality beyond that. Do you content that your experience/training qualify you to conduct an objective debate on this issue? Yes.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/22/2007 9:20 PM
Carbon emissions, when you look at the atmosphere, make up a fairly small portion of such. In fact, the largest "greenhouse gas" is water vapour. However, carbon emissions, when put into the atmosphere, do not have a quick and easy way to get back out: If we dump huge amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere, the atmosphere has a natural system by which to keep the cycle moving (precipitation). Hence, carbon emissions are quite good for global warming. Well, reducing carbon emissions would make a fairly large difference. I, however, know of no other "plans of action" to put a dent in global warming. If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so difficult to reduce, then it could be that even the most heroic efforts on the part of humanity would be unable to change a warming trend. Essentially the activist arguments at this point are a combination of optimism (in stating a belief that humans can positively change the environment, whatever that means) and that variation of Pascal's Wager. The whole debate reminds me of my heady days debating benign resolutions on national health care and immigration reform when every plan, no matter how innocuous, would lead to an ice age, thermonuclear war, and/or any other catastrophe that would wipe out humanity (apparently this was seen as a harmful thing to have occur). In this case, the evidence is a little stronger, but it requires a lot of extrapolation to reach that point. I've been wondering where I fall on the global warming debate. I don't think that I really have a position, and yet all of my statements sound like they oppose the current environmentalist position. I suppose that could be because I tend to reject alarmist positions, whether they be about melting ice caps, potential (read: non-existent) mutations of deadly viruses, or even terrorist cells targeting US citizens. My two key reasons for rejecting them are that they typically represent extremely unlikely (albeit potentially catastrophic, at least on a small scale) events, and I consider them to bear the burden of proof. In the case of global warming, there is a growing body of evidence (unless you ask Crichton) that the earth is warming, but there is only speculation as to why or what can or should be done about it.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

07/23/2007 11:00 AM
I have two degrees in a physical science (chemistry) and was working on a third when a major illness f(possibly work related) forced me to retire. I have been affiliated with five Universities/three medical schools. I have worked in several laboratories and industry. I have experienced highly intelligent men, well respected in their fields, become very irrational and emotional over things with which they had an attachment. I have had well educated men, tell me things that I new were not true (since I had witnessed results in my lab with which they were opposed). We like to think that we are very sophisticated and evolved. My experience tells me that we are only one step from the caves which protected us eons ago. What you have yet to truly learn is that of human nature. Many if not most theories and ideas fail when confronted with this barrier. Group think is a very real phenomenon. History is replete (including science) with this fault. Pet theories, biases, prejudice and ego all cloud ones vision. There is no greater need of humans than to "be right." These words are probably wasted on a true believer like yourself. I have tried to convey them before. Your youth and confidence in your own intellectual ability are your own worst enemy, but you are unable to see that. Please heed this last warning. Time has a way of humbling us all.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/23/2007 12:48 PM
If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so difficult to reduce, then it could be that even the most heroic efforts on the part of humanity would be unable to change a warming trend. Not in the immediate term, no, but over the long term trends would begin to return to normal. I'm not confident that humanity would ever put up such a heroic effort, though. In most of the Western world, while the population is concerned, they arne't concerned enough to seriously reduce emissions. In the United States, it has become a partisan issue, which eliminates basically any chance of anything getting done. In developing nations, obviously they aren't going to be told by Western nations "Hey, we are rich and glorious, and we pollute like hell, but we cannot afford you the same luxury. Sorry." The whole debate reminds me of my heady days debating benign resolutions on national health care and immigration reform when every plan, no matter how innocuous, would lead to an ice age, thermonuclear war, and/or any other catastrophe that would wipe out humanity Yes, but you were a policy debater, and so obviously you wouldn't need to have any measure of reason or logic in the debate ;) I don't think that I really have a position, and yet all of my statements sound like they oppose the current environmentalist position. I think I ought to note that it isn't necessarily an "environmentalist vs. antienvironmentalist" position. I am not an environmentalist: I don't really care if a bunch of animals lose some habitat, or is a bunch of trees get cut down, so long as it does not harm human activity. Hence, I will side with the environmentalists on things like pollution or clean air laws or whatever, but will oppose them on things like ANWR. My own study of the subject has revealed to me that it is an issue I should be aware of, though I'm not so concerned about it mainly because I don't think that anything can be realistically done about it. I suppose that could be because I tend to reject alarmist positions, whether they be about melting ice caps, potential (read: non-existent) mutations of deadly viruses, or even terrorist cells targeting US citizens. This is a natural and good default position to take. If someone says the world is going to end ,they ought to meet a very high standard of evidence. but there is only speculation as to why or what can or should be done about it. I don't think there is "only speculation" as to why or what should be done about it - have you read the actual IPCC reports? They get demonised, of course, but they do make for an interesting read, and they are heavily peer reviewed. I used to be very skeptical of global warming, but a series of debates with my father on the subject (he is also a skeptic) forced me to do a large amount of research, and my skepticism has gradually eroded thusly. It doesn't really change anything - my position has gone from "We need to do more research" to "Nothing is going to be done about it", but whatever I have two degrees in a physical science (chemistry) and was working on a third when a major illness f(possibly work related) forced me to retire. I have been affiliated with five Universities/three medical schools. I have worked in several laboratories and industry. I have experienced highly intelligent men, well respected in their fields, become very irrational and emotional over things with which they had an attachment. I have had well educated men, tell me things that I new were not true (since I had witnessed results in my lab with which they were opposed). We like to think that we are very sophisticated and evolved. My experience tells me that we are only one step from the caves which protected us eons ago. What you have yet to truly learn is that of human nature. Many if not most theories and ideas fail when confronted with this barrier. Group think is a very real phenomenon. History is replete (including science) with this fault. Pet theories, biases, prejudice and ego all cloud ones vision. There is no greater need of humans than to "be right." These words are probably wasted on a true believer like yourself. I have tried to convey them before. Your youth and confidence in your own intellectual ability are your own worst enemy, but you are unable to see that. Please heed this last warning. Time has a way of humbling us all. While interesting, this is not relevant to the discussion. I realise that my above response is somewhat terse, so allow me to expand: Avoiding the various pitfalls that are replete in common human thought and action is indeed a very worthy goal, and careful study of the structure of logics can aid tremendously in this. However, your argument does not flow: You need to demonstrate how one of my biases is affecting my analysis of some subject rather than simply making a personal attack upon my youth or whatever other characteristic you deem me to have. From my observations, you seem to simply repeat your own contentions and, if you find that someone is not accepting of them, you decry them in this fashion. It is not a valid form of argumentation to say "You are young, young people are arrogant and often have various biases, and therefore you are incorrect.". It is of course entirely possible that I am wholly incorrect. If this is the case, you should demonstrate to me the evidence, and weaknesses in my logic, rather than simply make personal attacks. Again, the principle is that you are arguing against the ideas, not against the man: It may be the case that I am arrogant and have a massive need to be correct, but this does not automatically mean I am incorrect, and you have failed thus far to demonstrate why you are correct and why I am not.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

07/24/2007 3:03 PM
What are your qualifications to make scientific determinations? You are wrong when you state that the IPCC reports are heavily peer reviewed. If you had watched the whole movie you would know that even when the authors when listed as agreeing with the content try and have their name reviewed the fact stiff oppostition. You see, you put great trust in a very political organization. Each author is only responsible for about 1 - 1.5 pages. The committee than edits or changes whatever they want without consulting the authors.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

07/30/2007 8:56 PM
What are your qualifications to make scientific determinations? This is an irrelevant ad hominem. You are wrong when you state that the IPCC reports are heavily peer reviewed Oh. If you had watched the whole movie you would know that even when the authors when listed as agreeing with the content try and have their name reviewed the fact stiff oppostition. Perhaps you ought to seek out contrary evidence rather than simply seek out confirming evidence when you assess the credibility and accuracy of your pet movie, sir. Each author is only responsible for about 1 - 1.5 pages. The committee than edits or changes whatever they want without consulting the authors. Indeed, and because of the Great People's Liberal Socialist Global Scientific Conspiracy (also known as NAFTA), The Committee (in special collaboration with all the national academies of science of the world), without any mercy whatsoever, censor and gut the report of all contrary evidence (of which there is a MASSIVE amount - it is just being hidden by the international bankers behind the North American Union) and then use secret chemicals to brainwash everyone into thinking that there is consensus. The media is completely complicit in this, of course, considering that they too are controlled by the international bankers. If only we had more people like But I note that you haven't actually given a rebuttal to basically anything I've said, but rather merely assertions, and have ignored the vast majority of my post.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Local Personal Posts > A CALL TO ACTION! > When Science Becomes Treason

ActiveForums 3.7