Quantcast
    MAIN INDEX RULES & LEGEND LOG IN  

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
how deniers view climate change

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All  


veganerd

Jan 25, 12 13:58

Post #1 of 119 (1994 views)
how deniers view climate change Quote | Reply



that pretty much sums it up but the article goes more in depth

enemy of epilepsy



msuguy512

Jan 25, 12 14:08

Post #2 of 119 (1975 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

“That’s incorrect...I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It’s how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can’t do that because 10 years from now, they’ll look back on my publications and say, ‘Was he right?’ But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it’s equally flat. You can find little realms where it’s equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it’s warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it [was] warming simply shows that that method doesn’t work. But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics. Newspapers can do that because 10 years from now, nobody will remember that they showed that.”

I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.


ziptied

Jan 25, 12 14:11

Post #3 of 119 (1970 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

http://web.mit.edu/...ighlights/prinn.html


veganerd

Jan 25, 12 14:16

Post #4 of 119 (1963 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [msuguy512] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

if the standard is 30 years then why play games using 1/6th of that to misrepresent the data? its hardly the same thing.

enemy of epilepsy



jackmott

Jan 25, 12 14:17

Post #5 of 119 (1962 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [msuguy512] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I've read this twice now and I'm still not clear about what you are getting at.

msuguy512 wrote:
“That’s incorrect...I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It’s how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can’t do that because 10 years from now, they’ll look back on my publications and say, ‘Was he right?’ But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it’s equally flat. You can find little realms where it’s equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it’s warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it [was] warming simply shows that that method doesn’t work. But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics. Newspapers can do that because 10 years from now, nobody will remember that they showed that.”

I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.


Local running hero Liz Shelton gets her first TT bike and reports on Jack's Generic Triathlon
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter


veganerd

Jan 25, 12 14:29

Post #6 of 119 (1941 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [jackmott] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

i think he is saying that deniers and scientists play the same game with the statistics

enemy of epilepsy



trail

Jan 25, 12 14:50

Post #7 of 119 (1919 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [msuguy512] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

 

>I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.

Did you read the whole article? I think they defended the 30-year rationale pretty well.


jackmott

Jan 26, 12 6:17

Post #8 of 119 (1851 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

veganerd wrote:
i think he is saying that deniers and scientists play the same game with the statistics

so he is really suggesting that, if you did a 100,000 year time span this 30 year bit would just be a cherry picked span in which the trend was upward?

so he basically pretends he hasn't been around for the many LR climate debates, and pretends he doesn't know the clear evidence that the current trend is tied to man made co2 emissions?

there is no hope is there?


Local running hero Liz Shelton gets her first TT bike and reports on Jack's Generic Triathlon
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter


Slowman

Jan 26, 12 7:40

Post #9 of 119 (1818 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

what you fail to comprehend is that the data does not matter. this is a matter of faith, not science.

i'll explain, and, let me see how many new enemies i can make here...

the republican and democratic parties are conglomerates engineered by electoral politics. each party has to win in order to remain relevant. the democrats' catering to unions, for example, or to mexicans, seems less to me a natural attachment to the principles of each, rather each is a group that in the aggregate form a majority or near majority.

the republican party in the early 60s was an intellectual movement under buckley, with a libertarian wing headed by goldwater. then came LBJ's great society, preceded by the crusade by the kennedys to enforce a ban on separate-but-equal. since that time, democrats - who were the party of the bigots - lost the bigot vote.

roe v wade, backed by democrats who, in general, were the celebrators of a right to privacy and civil liberties, threw conservative christians into the arms of the republicans.

now you have these disparate groups of folks who really don't necessary have much in common. but the strange thing is, this has created a new "orthodoxy." quakers, shakers, and those christians who have focused on the pacifist teachings of christ (quakers say a straightforward reading of the new testament strongly supports the pacifist posture) have been left behind. this borg containing those who advocate for the need for a strong military, gun rights, christian faith, a decentralized federal government, fiscal conservatism, a protection of big business, a suspicion of those with higher educations, and a hate for those who desegregated the south, have become a monolithic group.

what i find fascinating is that many of the christians who count themselves part of this group seem to me to have remade their theology to fit this orthodoxy, rather than holding true to their orthodoxy in the face of popular opinion. one slowtwitcher pointed to the persecution he faces for his views on this site, and i pointed out to him that he should feel himself blessed, because this persecution is promised him - it's a litmus test of his faith. just make sure your persecution is coming from the right class of people. i think the stinging persecution wrote about in the new testament would be from those inside your own creed who grow tired of your constant reminder of how the true faith stands in contrast to the popular faith of the say. i think old testament prophets like jeremiah are the great examples, as was jesus himself.

if you go back ten years and you look at the websites, and the bona fides of the scientists, who make up the denier wing, you'll find quite a few whose previous jobs were as asbestos deniers, and secondhand smoke deniers, because there are plenty liars-for-hire out there who choose to make their buck in this way. they're backed variously by the tobacco companies, oil companies, chemical companies, or whomever pays their freight. i personally took the time to do the research, i interviewed folks from both private and public instititutions, the head researchers from NOAA and NASA, i read the anti-global-warming literature, and this was the fruit of my own personal investigation.

when the tradition of your religious faith, as written, as remembered, is subordinated to the tenets of a popular movement, what you get is the catholic church of the middle ages, or the muslim theocracy in iran. the typical thing is for the trajectory of one's faith to be bent by the gravity of the mob. hence the admonition to "enter through the narrow gate. for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

i wonder whether most deniers of global warming really question the science or even consider the science. there is just too much gravity pulling them toward an orthodoxy that stands on opposition to anything the other side believes. the democrats are the party that loves minorities; that hems and hedges big business; that don't honor the sanctity of the unborn; that champions and mainstreams the gay lifestyle; that wants to place limits on gun ownership; who champions secular learning over biblical faith; who don't honor the founding fathers' faith; who will not prosecute righteous wars; and who think that man is responsible for climate change and want to place additional hardships on us because of it.

it's therefore easy not to believe in whatever it is the democrats are selling, regardless of the science; who never trust the establishment's so-called science.

if you don't believe me, just ask mojozenmaster.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman


veganerd

Jan 26, 12 7:42

Post #10 of 119 (1815 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [jackmott] [In reply to] Quote | Reply


Quote:
so he is really suggesting that, if you did a 100,000 year time span this 30 year bit would just be a cherry picked span in which the trend was upward?

so he basically pretends he hasn't been around for the many LR climate debates, and pretends he doesn't know the clear evidence that the current trend is tied to man made co2 emissions?

there is no hope is there?


i think thats exactly what he is saying. because, you know, all that co2 our ancestors 100000 years ago were pumping into the atmosphere that we are always complaining about.

i wonder what it will take for deniers to actually acknowledge there is a problem. im not shouting doom and gloom but it almost seems that it would take catastrophic events for them to wake the fuck up.

enemy of epilepsy



BarryP

Jan 26, 12 7:59

Post #11 of 119 (1802 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [msuguy512] [In reply to] Quote | Reply


Quote:
I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.

No they are not!

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485


Amstel

Jan 26, 12 8:00

Post #12 of 119 (1801 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I think most skeptics simply don't want to pay some bullshit carbon tax.


Blue Rider

Jan 26, 12 8:29

Post #13 of 119 (1788 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Amstel] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

The easiest way for us all to avoid paying "some bullshit carbon tax" is to change our ways. But they don't want to do that, either. Because that takes real, individual work. And it requires doing things for which we may not see the payoff in our lifetimes. So much easier to ignore it or denounce it and go about our ways.
___________________________
De que depende?


roddybottum

Jan 26, 12 8:31

Post #14 of 119 (1784 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [msuguy512] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

msuguy512 wrote:
I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.

That's just to avoid deniers getting all frothy at the mouth when the graph the last 100 (or more) years and it ends up looking EXACTLY LIKE A FREAKING HOCKEY STICK


veganerd

Jan 26, 12 8:46

Post #15 of 119 (1772 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

at first i had no clue where you were going and was going to suggest some meds! but then i got it and i totally agree. but what they do as the gif suggests, is try and use "science" to prop up their gut feelings/faith/contrarian position.

enemy of epilepsy



Slowman

Jan 26, 12 9:08

Post #16 of 119 (1757 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

the question for both dems and reps is what happens when your personal imperatives collide. the front lines of this are policies on energy and the environment.

i could see a lot of democrats listening to the SOTU and asking, "hey, i thought we were against national gas drilling. obama sounds bullish on national gas drilling. i guess that means now i'm for natural gas drilling."

on the republican side, we saw the darling of the christian conservatives voice a full throttled attack on generations of work by both parties to clean up the environment. any jew or christian (or muslim for that matter) who reads the account in the first chapter of genesis of the creation of the world and the living things on it, along with the declaration that god was pleased at what he had created, should at face value be absolutely aghast at the cavalier attitude rick perry has about the world on which we live. the question for every christian in every age is: what master do you serve? in the united states, for many christians the master is the republican party's coalition which - because it includes both big business and christians - includes party platforms that cause christians to "believe" in things like the dismantling of the EPA (a department that was incepted by the republican party to protect and clean up our environment), and the gutting of the clean air and clean water acts.

nebraskans are facing right now this clash of imperatives. if you're a farmer and you're concerned whether the keystone pipeline will affect the aquifer that is your lifeline, are you an ardent republican come what may? or have you suddenly seen the light on the need to correctly assess the environmental impact of a project before proceeding?

your core convictions, your core beliefs, should not simply consist of what your clan says it is, especially if your clan is a hypothetical and morphing construct cobbled together for expediency's sake with the aim of gaining a voting majority.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman


planetsbr

Jan 26, 12 9:38

Post #17 of 119 (1738 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Slowman wrote:
what you fail to comprehend is that the data does not matter. this is a matter of faith, not science.

i'll explain, and, let me see how many new enemies i can make here...

You may make enemies but you will also make (and keep) friends.
.
.


BarryP

Jan 26, 12 10:03

Post #18 of 119 (1718 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Great post, Dan.

It's easier to bond against a common enemy than it is to rally around shared ideas. I think, in a lot of ways, this is represented in both parties. While I believe that GW Bush in 2000 was probably a great example of a candidate that most repiblicans could agree on, this election as well as the last one has been more about "anyone but that Democrat who opposes my single issue."

This is how you get guns, God, and greed to join forces.





Quote:
what you fail to comprehend is that the data does not matter. this is a matter of faith, not science.

i'll explain, and, let me see how many new enemies i can make here...

the republican and democratic parties are conglomerates engineered by electoral politics. each party has to win in order to remain relevant. the democrats' catering to unions, for example, or to mexicans, seems less to me a natural attachment to the principles of each, rather each is a group that in the aggregate form a majority or near majority.

the republican party in the early 60s was an intellectual movement under buckley, with a libertarian wing headed by goldwater. then came LBJ's great society, preceded by the crusade by the kennedys to enforce a ban on separate-but-equal. since that time, democrats - who were the party of the bigots - lost the bigot vote.

roe v wade, backed by democrats who, in general, were the celebrators of a right to privacy and civil liberties, threw conservative christians into the arms of the republicans.

now you have these disparate groups of folks who really don't necessary have much in common. but the strange thing is, this has created a new "orthodoxy." quakers, shakers, and those christians who have focused on the pacifist teachings of christ (quakers say a straightforward reading of the new testament strongly supports the pacifist posture) have been left behind. this borg containing those who advocate for the need for a strong military, gun rights, christian faith, a decentralized federal government, fiscal conservatism, a protection of big business, a suspicion of those with higher educations, and a hate for those who desegregated the south, have become a monolithic group.

what i find fascinating is that many of the christians who count themselves part of this group seem to me to have remade their theology to fit this orthodoxy, rather than holding true to their orthodoxy in the face of popular opinion. one slowtwitcher pointed to the persecution he faces for his views on this site, and i pointed out to him that he should feel himself blessed, because this persecution is promised him - it's a litmus test of his faith. just make sure your persecution is coming from the right class of people. i think the stinging persecution wrote about in the new testament would be from those inside your own creed who grow tired of your constant reminder of how the true faith stands in contrast to the popular faith of the say. i think old testament prophets like jeremiah are the great examples, as was jesus himself.

if you go back ten years and you look at the websites, and the bona fides of the scientists, who make up the denier wing, you'll find quite a few whose previous jobs were as asbestos deniers, and secondhand smoke deniers, because there are plenty liars-for-hire out there who choose to make their buck in this way. they're backed variously by the tobacco companies, oil companies, chemical companies, or whomever pays their freight. i personally took the time to do the research, i interviewed folks from both private and public instititutions, the head researchers from NOAA and NASA, i read the anti-global-warming literature, and this was the fruit of my own personal investigation.

when the tradition of your religious faith, as written, as remembered, is subordinated to the tenets of a popular movement, what you get is the catholic church of the middle ages, or the muslim theocracy in iran. the typical thing is for the trajectory of one's faith to be bent by the gravity of the mob. hence the admonition to "enter through the narrow gate. for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

i wonder whether most deniers of global warming really question the science or even consider the science. there is just too much gravity pulling them toward an orthodoxy that stands on opposition to anything the other side believes. the democrats are the party that loves minorities; that hems and hedges big business; that don't honor the sanctity of the unborn; that champions and mainstreams the gay lifestyle; that wants to place limits on gun ownership; who champions secular learning over biblical faith; who don't honor the founding fathers' faith; who will not prosecute righteous wars; and who think that man is responsible for climate change and want to place additional hardships on us because of it.

it's therefore easy not to believe in whatever it is the democrats are selling, regardless of the science; who never trust the establishment's so-called science.

if you don't believe me, just ask mojozenmaster.


-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485


veganerd

Jan 26, 12 10:18

Post #19 of 119 (1708 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I guess thats what happens when you care more about your team than the truth. we need to teach kids at an early age to evaluate claims and choose a position based on what the evidence says rather than rah rah team dogma.

I think this is also why its hard for me to understand being democrat or republican.

enemy of epilepsy



j p o

Jan 26, 12 10:43

Post #20 of 119 (1696 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

"i could see a lot of democrats listening to the SOTU and asking, "hey, i thought we were against national gas drilling. obama sounds bullish on national gas drilling. i guess that means now i'm for natural gas drilling.""

I'm sure there are plenty of people on both sides who have this sort of thing happen. And as I type that sentence I came to think there were even more than I thought when I started typing it. I moved my estimate up because of all the issues that I find it amazing have become left/right issues and not fact/fantasy issues.

Most of these things seem to be questions of fact that we would all want to know the answer to, but have somehow become a matter of political leanings. Climate change is the one that comes immediately to mind. It is either true or false that man is causing climate change. And it is either true or false that we can do anything about it. But somehow this issue is divided pretty neatly based on political leaning.

But I also think there are a lot of people that have the same feelings I do when someone like Obama says something I don't agree with. Since I am quite left of center and live in Ohio my options are usually pretty limited. By the time of the OH residential primary the nominee is usually already decided. Come the presidential election the chances of the Republican candidate being aligned more favorably with my view of the world than the Democrat is pretty remote.

So while I don't support all things Obama or Harry Reid support, it would be a rare day when John Boehner or Newt Gingrich more closely represents my view of the world.



edwinj

Jan 26, 12 10:56

Post #21 of 119 (1691 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

....And anyone who thinks for themselves hates both political parties because of what you just described.

_________________________________________________

LLLEEEEEEEEEEEERRRROOOYYY JEEENNNNNKKKIIINNNNNS!!!


Old Hickory

Jan 26, 12 11:26

Post #22 of 119 (1679 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [veganerd] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

deniers or skeptics? Which is it?

We should all be skeptics when governments and politicians are shoving hurried laws and policies down our throats. What's the hurry? Oh yea, only so much time to make hay....


________

Jan 26, 12 11:45

Post #23 of 119 (1670 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I agree with much of what you said, at least in spirit. However, I disagree with this.

Slowman wrote:
now you have these disparate groups of folks who really don't necessary have much in common. but the strange thing is, this has created a new "orthodoxy." quakers, shakers, and those christians who have focused on the pacifist teachings of christ (quakers say a straightforward reading of the new testament strongly supports the pacifist posture) have been left behind.

The Quakers and Shakers were left behind a LONG time ago; way before the 60s. I don't think the Sahkers existed much past 1920 and they were never a dominantly popular sect. I think Quakers still exist, but barely.

Slowman wrote:

this borg containing those who advocate for the need for a strong military, gun rights, christian faith, a decentralized federal government, fiscal conservatism, a protection of big business, a suspicion of those with higher educations, and a hate for those who desegregated the south, have become a monolithic group.

what i find fascinating is that many of the christians who count themselves part of this group seem to me to have remade their theology to fit this orthodoxy, rather than holding true to their orthodoxy in the face of popular opinion.

Most Christians I know, and their decendants, have always had those beliefs and they continue those beliefs. (Surely, we are generalizing here.) The only difference is that there political affiliation changed from Democrat (southern) to Republican. They have not changed their theology nor their "orthodoxy" as you put it.


undrh20

Jan 26, 12 12:05

Post #24 of 119 (1662 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [Slowman] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Slowman wrote:
if you go back ten years and you look at the websites, and the bona fides of the scientists, who make up the denier wing, you'll find quite a few whose previous jobs were as asbestos deniers, and secondhand smoke deniers, because there are plenty liars-for-hire out there who choose to make their buck in this way. they're backed variously by the tobacco companies, oil companies, chemical companies, or whomever pays their freight. i personally took the time to do the research, i interviewed folks from both private and public instititutions, the head researchers from NOAA and NASA, i read the anti-global-warming literature, and this was the fruit of my own personal investigation.

This is a major point to be emphasized. Scientists that I confer with regularly can not find one legitimate study that contradicts the prevailing scientific consensus as it relates to climate change. Virtually every study that finds fault with climate science has links to the above mentioned interests. Yet, the scientific community although aware, remains hesitant (with few exceptions) to speak out and condemn the pseudo-science for fear it would cost them to lose their valued virtue . . . perceived objectivity.

the democrats are the party . . . . . who think that man is responsible for climate change and want to place additional hardships on us because of it.

Those of us (not necessarily Democrats) who are convinced that climate change is an vital issue do not equate effectively addressing anthropogenic climate change with imposing hardships on mankind. To the contrary, we see it as a way of avoiding the tribulations of what is to come if we maintain the status quo. Not only are there human and environmental threats to consider, but there are many economic opportunities that would come about if we developed a comprehensive plan to transition away from carbon based energy sources. We are not looking to destroy an economy, but to invigorate and revitalize it.

it's therefore easy not to believe in whatever it is the democrats are selling, regardless of the science;

This is the saddest portion of your commentary because it reflects on the extent to which divisiveness and polarization has infected and harmed our political system and society as a whole. Even in this forum comprised of triathletes, our commonality is frequently overcome by vitriol.


Slowman

Jan 26, 12 12:19

Post #25 of 119 (1653 views)
Re: how deniers view climate change [undrh20] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

"we see it as a way of avoiding the tribulations of what is to come if we maintain the status quo"

i have made this case before. either the reality, or the fiction, of global warming and its effects are here. the world is moving toward green energy in any case. no getting around that. somebody's going to make the windmills. somebody's going to make the solar cells, the inverters, the smart grid components, smart power meters, electric car batteries, and so on. meanwhile, the arab/persian/south asian/south american world just gets more and more uncertain.

what is our wisest response to that, regardless of whether global warming exists or not?


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All  
 
 
 



Ironman run shoe weight
When you race an Ironman, what weight class do you think is most appropriate for you? A sub-6-ounce shoe is a pure racing flat. A 7.5 - 8oz shoe would be a Saucony Kinvara or Hoka Clifton. A 10-11oz shoe is a lightweight trainer.
5.5-6.0oz
7.5-8.0oz
9.5-11.0oz
12oz+
I never thought about it
I don't do 140.6
I'm boycotting this poll