AWG conspiracy, why?

[Upchurch]

So anyone and everyone who questions or is skeptical is a CTer?

Not at all, but as time goes on and information becomes more readily available, the ratio of CT'ers to skeptics approaches infinity.

Take Birtherism, for example. Early on it was, perhaps, a legitimate question that one could be skeptical about. But as more information came to light (namely the dang birth certificate was presented, inspected, and verified) the skeptics dropped out and left only the CT'ers.

All reputable scientific societies accept the conclusion of global warming at this point. Deniers, at this point, are either uninformed, misinformed, and/or a CT'er. Skeptics? Not so much.

 

[Myriad]

A few bickering posts were moved to Abandon All Hope. Please keep it civil and on topic; attack the argument, not the arguer. A little incivility might not seem like much, but if this thread were to continue its recent trend of heating up at a rate of 1.5° C per page, in 20 pages or so it would become completely uninhabitable.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad

 

[GreyICE]

About 90% of the opposition to Global Warming seems to stem from 'Appeal to consequences' (i.e. the proposed solutions to Global Warming are unacceptable, therefore Global Warming isn't happening).

I've really seen very little opposition that doesn't follow this trend. Most find the proposed actions (including some of the very insane ones) unacceptable, so they deride the science.

Which makes no sense, but that's CT for ya.

 

[Peephole]

That not everyone that signed it was Donald Duck.

What's your opinion on him being a denier and CTer?

Randi denies the conclusions of climate science on the basis of a worthless petition. This doesn't make him any better than say, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists touting crap like this.

2000 people, that's so many!

 

[Horatius]

Randi denies the conclusions of climate science on the basis of a worthless petition. This doesn't make him any better than say, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists touting crap like this.

2000 people, that's so many!

Not so much.....


http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html

 

[fourtoe]

Not so much.....


http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html

I agree with Randi on the Celsius thing. It confuses me all the time when talking about at what degree steel can melt with Truthers.

I'm glad Randi understood the importance of this and responded fairly quickly. I'm especially glad that he is now aware of the sketchiness that is the Petition Project.

 

[Bob from NJ]

Can't you tell the difference between a polluted future and one with AGW?

And had we not changed the pollution rates of the 1960s, we would be in pretty bad shape now. A warning that was HEEDED and dealt with seriously and which therefore prevents the bad event it predicted was simply not an alarmist or wrong warning.

Is that so very hard to understand?

AGW or pollution? A semantic difference in the mind of a layman. Pollution or greenhouse effect, it's the same end result- the world becomes unlivable.

Man-made global warming may be an established scientific fact, beyond debate- but it's presented to 'the masses' in a way that makes us suspicious. It's never a cool-headed rational appeal to responsible people, it's always panicky scare tactics. I call it 'fire and brimstone'.

The US ans EU are singled out as the ONLY polluters; greenhouse gases from developing nations (China, Mexico etc) are somehow magically harmless to the environment. THIS IS THE MESSAGE WE ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE. This absurd message is my primary reason for doubting Global Warming. (I'm not a "denier", but I won't blindly trust propoganda either)

Using extremist scare tactics and singling out the USA/EU does nothing but UNDERMINE the fact that we need to clean up our act to avert a disaster.

Once a message has the ring of propoganda to it, no amount of solid scientific evidence can make it sound convincing. If the SCIENCE were presented in a sane way that wasn't condescending, more people would believe it. What's presented to "deniers" and "doubters" is just a rival form of dogma; no wonder so many won't believe it.

 

[BenBurch]

So, you can't tell the difference.

 

[Travis]

Actually, to hear most of the activists, you'd think the US was the only country producing greenhouse gases whatsoever. Remember I told you about the Danish tourist who insisted the USA was the only country that wasn't carbon neutral? But why should we let rampant anti-Americanism reduce us to irrational denial? We shouldn't. We should rise above their shrill "America is evil" cries.

 

[fourtoe]

AGW or pollution? A semantic difference in the mind of a layman. Pollution or greenhouse effect, it's the same end result- the world becomes unlivable.

Man-made global warming may be an established scientific fact, beyond debate- but it's presented to 'the masses' in a way that makes us suspicious. It's never a cool-headed rational appeal to responsible people, it's always panicky scare tactics. I call it 'fire and brimstone'.

The US ans EU are singled out as the ONLY polluters; greenhouse gases from developing nations (China, Mexico etc) are somehow magically harmless to the environment. THIS IS THE MESSAGE WE ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE. This absurd message is my primary reason for doubting Global Warming. (I'm not a "denier", but I won't blindly trust propoganda either)

Using extremist scare tactics and singling out the USA/EU does nothing but UNDERMINE the fact that we need to clean up our act to avert a disaster.

Once a message has the ring of propoganda to it, no amount of solid scientific evidence can make it sound convincing. If the SCIENCE were presented in a sane way that wasn't condescending, more people would believe it. What's presented to "deniers" and "doubters" is just a rival form of dogma; no wonder so many won't believe it.

Bob you're all over the place here. You're saying that you are accepting that there is AGW but at the same time because it is represented poorly to the layman that you don't accept AGW?

And from where I've gotten my information, both developed and developing countries are at fault...I'm not sure who is making all these over dramatic claims and I don't understand not accepting AGW because it is represented in correctly to the layman.

That sounds like not accepting the theory of evolution because ppl sometimes think that it means we descended from monkeys.

 

[Peephole]

AGW or pollution? A semantic difference in the mind of a layman. Pollution or greenhouse effect, it's the same end result- the world becomes unlivable.

Man-made global warming may be an established scientific fact, beyond debate- but it's presented to 'the masses' in a way that makes us suspicious. It's never a cool-headed rational appeal to responsible people, it's always panicky scare tactics. I call it 'fire and brimstone'.

The US ans EU are singled out as the ONLY polluters; greenhouse gases from developing nations (China, Mexico etc) are somehow magically harmless to the environment. THIS IS THE MESSAGE WE ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE. This absurd message is my primary reason for doubting Global Warming. (I'm not a "denier", but I won't blindly trust propoganda either)

Using extremist scare tactics and singling out the USA/EU does nothing but UNDERMINE the fact that we need to clean up our act to avert a disaster.

Once a message has the ring of propoganda to it, no amount of solid scientific evidence can make it sound convincing. If the SCIENCE were presented in a sane way that wasn't condescending, more people would believe it. What's presented to "deniers" and "doubters" is just a rival form of dogma; no wonder so many won't believe it.

Are you trying to set a record in setting up strawmen or something?

 

[Bob from NJ]

Actually, to hear most of the activists, you'd think the US was the only country producing greenhouse gases whatsoever. Remember I told you about the Danish tourist who insisted the USA was the only country that wasn't carbon neutral? But why should we let rampant anti-Americanism reduce us to irrational denial? We shouldn't. We should rise above their shrill "America is evil" cries.

Maybe it all really boils down to "Anti-Americanism" after all. I don't wanna think that. I really wanna believe that educated people are better than that.

I've never been a GW "Denier". I totally believed in man-made Global Warming until recent years, and I believe in it now to an extent; any kind of pollution will damage the environment if it gets out of hand; we need to find ways to pollute less, it's a no-brainer.

But how bad is it really? I suspect the severity of the problem and mankind's contribution to it have been massively exaggerated by extremist zealots. WHY would I start to suspect something like this? Who are some of these extremist "straw-men"? We need look no further than this thread to find some; look at the level of hostility and ignorance it sank to INSTANTLY (Not you- I think you know the ones I mean) It really does seem like I've blasphemed someone's "Religion" just by doubting or questioning...

I can't cite verse and chapter, I can't quote the exact issues and pages of every magazine where I've read about impending ecological Doom; I can't tell you the names of every author of every news report I've ever heard or read on the subject, or who wrote which PBS specials that I tuned into the middle of; and I shouldn't be expected to either. I don't have an extra lifetime to devote to the subject on a daily basis.

And to me it's not the most important problem in the world, anyway. I've seen enough to convince me that it's largely hysteria, a modern-day environmental McCarthyism and not a true threat to "Mother Gaia".

What concerns me is how some people devoted to rationality, skepticism, science, and critical thinking are falling into the same old dogmatic ways that I'm struggling to come out of. I've just begun my journey into rationality but I find people who should be way ahead of me on the path behaving just like religious fanatics.

 

[GreyICE]

To put some context to BobfromNJ's totally not canned rant that is totally original and not something anyone has ever heard before, here's some of the hysterical and dogmatic posts from the first page that reveal how rigidly the 'religious' on this forum stick to their lines.

I think this is the most important point. There are a lot of things surrounding AGW that are woo. There are a huge number of activists misstating, twisting, and flat out lying to push some philosophy, ideology, or agenda, that is simply using AGW. Hell, just look at the loons over at GreenPeace. The anti-human crowd latches on to 'green'. Companies us green screens and greenwash their practices.

The facts of AGW are troubling, and need addressed. The 'how' of addressing them includes a lot of bs. That leads some many people to dismiss the good science. They can't see past the layer of ********.

There is (sadly) too much woo on both sides, but the actual science is clear.

It was hard for me to accept AGW after going to college with blatant Communists who were, suddenly, big on this issue who's only solution, according to them, was to dismantle capitalism. I eventually got around it but it was hard when all I could think about every time someone mentioned AGW were the drum circle idiots who called people "Planet Murderers" for not being vegans.

As you can see from these dogmatic religious fanatics, the evil AGW crowd is full of people who INSTANTLY react to anything said against a believer in the religion of AGW with scorn.

His totally not canned rant is right on the mark. You can tell he carefully read this thread and saw the behavior he described, and tailored his post to the actions and beliefs shown in this thread. And that, folks, is the difference between actual interaction, and canned rants. Yes, Bob has the spark.

 

[tsig]

Maybe it all really boils down to "Anti-Americanism" after all. I don't wanna think that. I really wanna believe that educated people are better than that.

I've never been a GW "Denier". I totally believed in man-made Global Warming until recent years, and I believe in it now to an extent; any kind of pollution will damage the environment if it gets out of hand; we need to find ways to pollute less, it's a no-brainer.

But how bad is it really? I suspect the severity of the problem and mankind's contribution to it have been massively exaggerated by extremist zealots. WHY would I start to suspect something like this? Who are some of these extremist "straw-men"? We need look no further than this thread to find some; look at the level of hostility and ignorance it sank to INSTANTLY (Not you- I think you know the ones I mean) It really does seem like I've blasphemed someone's "Religion" just by doubting or questioning...

I can't cite verse and chapter, I can't quote the exact issues and pages of every magazine where I've read about impending ecological Doom; I can't tell you the names of every author of every news report I've ever heard or read on the subject, or who wrote which PBS specials that I tuned into the middle of; and I shouldn't be expected to either. I don't have an extra lifetime to devote to the subject on a daily basis.

And to me it's not the most important problem in the world, anyway. I've seen enough to convince me that it's largely hysteria, a modern-day environmental McCarthyism and not a true threat to "Mother Gaia".

What concerns me is how some people devoted to rationality, skepticism, science, and critical thinking are falling into the same old dogmatic ways that I'm struggling to come out of. I've just begun my journey into rationality but I find people who should be way ahead of me on the path behaving just like religious fanatics.

Well we are truly sorry that we have sinned and fell short of your high expectoration's.


mea culpa
mea culpa
mea maxima culpa.

The egret is to the left.

 

[Meed]

I've just begun my journey into rationality

Global warming hysteria

rammed down my throat for decades

political agenda

like Revealed Dogma;

a fiery inferno of CO2 and styrofoam cups!!!!

a modern-day environmental McCarthyism

Authoritarians

extremist scare tactics

THIS IS THE MESSAGE WE ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE

hostility and ignorance

just like religious fanatics

We need look no further than this thread

Just look at pop culture from the 80s

the revealed wisdom of scare-movies

question what you are TOLD by authority figures

second-hand sources like the Internet

I suspect

I can't cite

I can't quote

I've seen enough

Just who is being hysterical here, you or us? You may want to reevaluate the course of your "journey into rationality".

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Well we are truly sorry that we have sinned and fell short of your high expectoration's.


mea culpa
mea culpa
mea maxima culpa.

The egret is to the left.

Oddly, when I read this, I looked to the left and there was a great egret, a bird, in the pond behind my house.

 

[varwoche]

Man-made global warming may be an established scientific fact, beyond debate- but it's presented to 'the masses' in a way that makes us suspicious. It's never a cool-headed rational appeal to responsible people, it's always panicky scare tactics. I call it 'fire and brimstone'.

The solution is pretty simple. Don't rely on newspapers. Go straight to the expert sources.

 

[tsig]

Oddly, when I read this, I looked to the left and there was a great egret, a bird, in the pond behind my house.

Synchronicity at it's finest. Though what it means no one knows.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The solution is pretty simple. Don't rely on newspapers. Go straight to the expert sources.

Like East Anglia

 

[varwoche]

Like East Anglia

Yes.