|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is it all Leftwing Conspiracy/Massive Scientific Fraud? |
| Of course it is |
|
35% |
[ 14 ] |
| Very likely |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
| No real opinion |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Probably not |
|
22% |
[ 9 ] |
| What madness! |
|
17% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: I don't want to sail with this ship of fools [climate] |
 |
|
I'm finding all this climate denial quite astonishing, and alarming. Lately it has me thinking of this song: Ship of Fools
I had never realised the extent of it until late - thinking it was mainly the preserve of kooks and nutters or the downright contrary (who fancy themselves to be clever independent thinkers). But it seems to be ubiquitous.
The Copenhagen conference looks like a disaster and people who seem otherwise intelligent appear quite taken with the idea that anthropogenic warming is a) just a fantastical creation of the left - brought about to bring capitalism to its knees or b) a huge fraud perpetrated by thousands of scientists, and university departments all over the world, in order to get on the gravy train.
From the UK's Independent:
Joss Garman: Climate change deniers cost the earth
| Quote: |
A generation of young conservative politicians and journalists across the English-speaking world have put down a historic bet that could decimate their movement.
From the Senate chamber in Canberra, Australia, to the editorial offices of The Spectator in London, an entire class of right-wing leaders has hitched its wagon to an outlandish conspiracy theory without seemingly appreciating the profound implications their move will have not just for the planet, but also for the viability of their political project.
The conspiracy theory in question, which has been given unparalleled publicity ahead of the Copenhagen summit, goes like this: several thousand leading scientists, seeking to secure research funding, have corrupted global temperature data to stay in the pay of governments bent upon extorting higher taxes through the dissemination of scare stories about so-called global warming. Climate change is a hoax propagated by greedy academics and greens, better described as "the new reds".
Clearly this theory is undiluted lunacy, but its adoption by great swathes of the right is the most significant strategic blunder by a political movement in my lifetime. The great debates of the last century � be they over a woman's right to choose or whether the US should have fought on in Vietnam � have never, and likely will never, be entirely resolved. And even if they were, the public was never likely to exact a catastrophic and permanent political price from the losing side.
But with climate change things are very different, presenting a grave danger to the electoral success of right-wing politics this century. Because man-made climate change is not some abstract political theory but a scientific prediction that will be proven beyond doubt in the years ahead in the form of climate impacts. |
| Quote: |
I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives Andrew Tyrie and Daniel Hannan, James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph and Fraser Nelson of The Spectator have gambled their reputations on a conspiracy theory supported by the flimsiest of evidence.
Earlier this year they hitched their wagons to Ian Plimer, an Australian academic whose central thesis involves the assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. It was Plimer's work that formed the core of the Daily Express front page last week, headlined "The Big Climate Change Fraud". This will appear in exhibitions in years to come alongside the Daily Mail headline of the Thirties � "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".
His volcano claim is an assertion that can be tested beyond doubt by the application of empirical data. And, of course, Plimer is wrong. Very wrong. In fact, humans emit 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Nasa's Gavin Schmidt, a world-leading climate scientist, dissected the Plimer hypothesis in excruciating detail and found it to be based, among other things, on a "basic logical fallacy".
The most common deniers' meme is centred on the claim that we have just experienced a decade of global cooling, a wilful misinterpretation of data. In fact, the eight warmest years in recorded history are, according to the Hadley Centre, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007. In other words, this is the hottest decade in the 150-year global temperature record.
The deniers have also claimed that the extent of the Arctic sea ice increased dramatically in winter 2008. Yes, it did. It increases in size every winter � because it's winter. But the long-term trend is one of alarming decline, such that scientists at the US Naval Postgraduate School now fear summer sea ice may disappear in the next decade, a century earlier than had been expected. |
So what do you all make of this? Do you feel complacent, alarmed, or relieved that this huge hoax has finally been brought to light? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BB, I'd like to know how it is that you are so sure about this.
How can one deny that the science has not been called into question at the very least? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People are like this.
There are at least two separate questions:
1) Is climate change real?
2) If so, what should we do about it?
The first question is scientific, the second political. But people conflate the two. They let the impact of question one on question two affect their conclusion on question one.
It seems to me climate change is real, but I'm confused as to what extent it is a threat. Ocean acidification is undeniable, but temperature models are also unreliable.
Question #2 is really hard, even if we accept that climate change is real. So, I don't think its madness that people, who are not accustomed to treating daily issues in any very methodical or logical way, somehow conflate the two present issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
1) Is [anthropogenic] climate change real?
2) If so, what should we do about it? |
Re: your first question: I think everyone agrees that the Earth's climate has changed, is changing, and will continue to change -- sometimes very suddenly and extremely, too. One little word lies behind our current controversies.
Re: your second question: do not forget all of the different people who converge on this opportunity, or pretext, to aggressivley advance their own special politics. As a sales point they get to dangle the end of the world before us. Radical environmentalists, Marxists, anti-Western Third-Worlders, the list goes on. Everyone loves to cloak and mask their own agendas with alleged disinterest and "the greater good of all," Kuros. And it is those people who are doing us the greatest disservice here, and in Coenhagen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the conspiracy part is coming in large part because of the internet. There have always been loons, but now they can find each other much more easily than before. The cynical vested interests can easily contact them essentially for free and organize astroturf opposition at the click of a mouse.
The posted article mentions the political foolishness of the choice, but I'm not convinced it is foolish. The economy is bad almost everywhere and in bad economic times, the public is vulnerable to wild-eyed political solutions. Some people will be attracted to the anti-science aspect of it; some will be attracted to the anti-capitalist side of it; the 'end times' crowd will cheer on the end of the world; the paranoids have yet another thing to be scared of--either the sky is falling or someone is using the fear of the sky falling for some political advantage...
It's a serious problem and I have no idea what can be done about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Is [anthropogenic] climate change real?
|
97% of climate scientists answer yes (or almost certainly yes) to your question. But no doubt they are all marxists (and feminists to boot). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Is [anthropogenic] climate change real?
|
97% of climate scientists answer yes (or almost certainly yes) to your question. But no doubt they are all marxists (and feminists to boot). |
97% of who and how many? More phony stats.
The fact is that there were only 4 sources of numbers for temperature data in the whole GW debate - not just the AGW debate.
Now, it is surely true that temperatures have been rising since the last ice age, and likely they will continue to do so until they begin to turn quickly downward to the next ice age. An ice age will of course be far more damaging to man than a bit of warming, but the socialists will lie again and blame that on capitalism and try for more power and money then as well.
But, the Climategate scandal has directly eliminated two of the sources of data as they are admittedly faking their data, changing historical data, fudging their trend lines and doing whatever it takes to achieve their preconceived results.
The other two sources are linked as well, so all the AGW temp data is gone.
And there are not thousands of scientists involved in the actual base data. There are only a few dozen.
The thousands of scientists that are often referred to are just educated spectators who believe in the plausibility of the idea of AGW, but when actually confronted on the quality of the data, they will all hedge with "if the data is valid" statements.
Which means, were down to a few dozen money grubbing hacks with an agenda trying to secure funding, caught with their pants down and no scientific basis left to support AGW.
Sorry, BB, but there is no AGW science left to disprove. Nothing has been proven, so there is nothing to disprove. We don't have to disprove "nothing."
It's time to begin again, with real scientists, with no tainted government money for funding, no UN involvement, working with all data, analyses and computer models, in the open, on the net, for all to see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Is [anthropogenic] climate change real?
|
97% of climate scientists answer yes (or almost certainly yes) to your question. But no doubt they are all marxists (and feminists to boot). |
haha, hilarious grade A bull plop. Did you ask them all yourself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Christ. And eight out of twelve dentists recommend Scope mouthwash. And 56.8% of all statistics are invented on the spot, too...
Speaking of the ship of fools, I have read H. Chavez's remarks at Copenhagen. And I for one will not support any agreement that comes out of that anticapitalist mob-gathering. Just contacted both senators -- the ones who would ultimately participate in ratifying any treaty on this -- and let them know my views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The offended, incredulous tone, as well as the backhanded compliment about intelligence, are textbook. A solid liberal screed. Three stars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The offended, incredulous tone, as well as the backhanded compliment about intelligence, are textbook. A solid liberal screed. Three stars. |
Absolutely. Too bad, for them, that they aren't working anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Bird, here's another fool!!
By Lee C. Gerhard
December 16, 2009
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec/16/fact-based-climate-debate/
| Quote: |
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.
Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:
Advertisement
� The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
� Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
� Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
� There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
� The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:
� Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
� The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.
� Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.
� Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the �hockey stick� graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.
� During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.
Contrary to many public statements:
� Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.
� Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.
� Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years � extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
� The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
� Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics. |
I hope this ship is a super-tanker. We're going to need all the room as more flock to the fool's ship and the warmist fundamentalists are left with their leaky raft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
BB, I'd like to know how it is that you are so sure about this.
How can one deny that the science has not been called into question at the very least? |
You can not be certain of anything, if you are going about it in a scientific way. You plump for the theory that best explains what you are observing.
What I'm sure about is that almost all climate scientists agree that a) climate warming is happening, and that b) this is being caused by human activity.
I don't believe that a few sinsister scientists have managed to hoodwink the whole world including thousands of fellow scientists (except of course for you very clever skeptics without a science qualification to rub together) into believing an extraordinary hoax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Christ. And eight out of twelve dentists recommend Scope mouthwash. And 56.8% of all statistics are invented on the spot, too... |
Yeah, like I just pulled the figure out my arse. A quick google search and you will find this figure is regularly quoted.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Speaking of the ship of fools, I have read H. Chavez's remarks at Copenhagen. And I for one will not support any agreement that comes out of that anticapitalist mob-gathering. Just contacted both senators -- the ones who would ultimately participate in ratifying any treaty on this -- and let them know my views. |
Because you'd happily cut off your nose to spite your own face. And who is the one so regularly calling others childish? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
