No matter: it’s required to say ‘but on the other hand’

But equivalency is essential – we must report both ‘sides’ say our media stars!!! From here:

climate pie chart

20 responses to “No matter: it’s required to say ‘but on the other hand’

  1. Lemme guess. Three of the 24 were Rush, his brother Darrell and his other brother Darrell. 😆

    Like

  2. And that says what many don’t understand – and that’s how science works. After all, one can disagree with science all they want, but it doesn’t mean that science is wrong.

    Like

  3. @Moe
    Accuracy is even more important. Note that the specific criteria used doesn’t differentiate between natural cyclical change and anthropogenic change, much less the impact of CO2 on this change.

    @aFrankAngle
    Nor does agreement with it make it right. Remember that before the end of the 19th century science held that Blacks were a related, lesser species of hominid and not quite fully human. It also held that diseases was caused by chemicals – “bad airs” – as opposed to germs.

    Like

    • jonolan – there’s a very important difference arguing against natural cyclical change. It’s the speed with which it’s happening. As for the effects of overloading an atmosphere with CO2, that’s abundantly documented.

      Like

      • Actually, Moe, it’s not abundantly documented in that the documentation, including the paleo-geologolical record offers conflicting data. What documentation we have also seems to have been flawed or altered at the basic data gathering point. Additional even to all that, observed evidence doesn’t follow any of the models predicted by the scientists using that data.

        Now I’m not 100% against reducing CO2 emissions by reasonable amounts at economically sustainable rates. Climate change or not, there’s other practical benefits that would accrue from this. I am, however, 100% against this manufactured consensus that CO2 is the cause of Climate Change.

        There are many other reasons why it could be happening, many of which are equally anthropogenic, that are being ignored because they don’t fit with that manufactured consensus because they’re uncomfortable and don’t make the situation a purely First-World-caused problem.

        Like

  4. @ jonolan,

    Your point about cyclical vs. anthropogenic change is of course valid, but there’s no doubt that both are involved and both are significant. But your second point is more problematical because it implies that science is an ideological source. It isn’t, it is a self-correcting methodology that requires testable data and repeatable results.

    Like

      • I don’t see where I said that but science IS an ideological source even though – or, possibly, because – it is a self-correcting methodology that requires testable data and repeatable results. That is even true today when societies and governments deprecate religions as ideological sources. This may or may not be a great evil.

        Like

        • @ jonolan,

          Science-derived information might be used to support an ideological position, but it is not in itself an ideology, which was my point, and if adherents of an ideology such as global-warming-denial wish to refute information offered as scientific, they should do so on the same basis. Otherwise, the refutation will not be credible to scientists.

          Religions are ideological sources, and if that is received as deprecation it ought to cause some navel-gazing, IMHO. Religion is wishful thinking unsupported by testable data.

          Like

          • Jim,

            If it’s used to support- or is the basis of an ideological position, it’s an ideological source. In the case of science it’s an ideological source with only a very limited moral component, which can cause problems.

            As for CO2-based AGW – It’s hard to present a scientific rebuttal when the Warmists either refute the source or deny the conflicting science. This was made much worse by Mann and others who actually corrupted and suborned the peer-review process.

            As for what’s credible to scientists – nothing that conflicts with their own theories or that might interfere with their funding or academic position is ever found to credible by them. Look up what Einstein had to go through as an example of that.

            Like

  5. It is so much more to the point to just say STOP FUCKING POLLUTING the world. But isnt CLIMATE CHANGE so much more, well, exotic sounding. 😦
    My favourite is the “save the trees” bumper stickers. 😉

    Like

  6. The Scientific Debate is Over

    The graphic you have is completely misleading.

    Jonolan pointed it out, but I have to say it as well. All the chart claims is that the earth is warming. I would have to say to that, “Big deal”. No one thinks that the planet has not warmed in the past, won’t cool in the future and then warm again at some future point.

    The debate s specifically surrounding, not CO2 and its impact, but at the positive feedbacks that *must* occur for the alarmists to be right in their cataclysmic predictions.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to warming. I think that the 1 degree per century may be close. But for the alarmist, that isn’t enough. For the alarmist the conversation turns to positive feedbacks that magnify that warming to 5-10 degrees over a century.

    Question:

    Where is the warming, a degree per, occurring at?

    Like

    • To those who deny the urgency of global warming and who deny that humanity needs to take action on it I would point out that it is a case of an unstable system. The more icecap that melts, the less sunlight that is reflected and the more warmth that is absorbed. This accelerates the process. The melting is already progressing well ahead of the earlier predictions. Or, they could just go to the New Jersey shore and ask around. That would also work.

      Like

      • To those who deny the urgency of global warming and who deny that humanity needs to take action on it I would point out that it is a case of an unstable system.

        Forgive me if I keep a skeptical eye on the warming of the earth and the catastrophic prediction of alarmists that the “world is over”.

        “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” – Ehrlich in his book, The Population Bomb (1968)

        Like

        • Sure, Pino, I’m a skeptic too, about a lot of things. But unlike in the case of global warming Ehrlich was not voicing the opinions of the majority of scientists when he published his book and appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, he was just updating the fears of Malthus. In any case, you and I need not worry much about global warming – its effects will be long-term and stochastic, punctuated by events like super-storm Sandy, and attempts to deal with it will unfortunately be muted, ironically, by the population explosion in Africa and the sub-continent where mere survival trumps all suggestions of moderation.

          Like

      • Ignoring for a moment the Global Cooling hysteria of a few decades ago, let’s look at your statement.

        It’s true on its face; that is without doubt as the effects of albedo are very well documented by nonpartisan researchers. It doesn’t, however, address the question of causation. Instead it presents the postulate that CO2 is the cause.

        Fact 1: Both ambient mean temperatures and wind patterns affect the north polar ice cap and temperature, winds, AND vulcanism affect the south polar ice caps.

        Fact 2: Scientists do not currently even have a model indicating what are the relative effects of temperature, winds, and vulcanism on the ice caps…and this “consensus” is stifling any significant research into that because research that contradicts the current consensus dogma doesn’t get funding or peer-reviewed in most cases.

        Like

        • You make two valid points, jonolan. I don’t dispute that causation of global warming is complex and that the effects of some factors such as vulcanism and cow farts are as yet insufficiently quantified. However, this is all a public debate and unlike you I don’t see a vast conspiracy over it. What I do see is a serious problem that affects the whole world, one that challenges man’s nature in dealing with, one that would require global cooperation and consensus. It is likely a lost cause. Hell, we can’t even achieve Middle East peace.

          Like

          • What I see is:

            1 – Bad science performed by sloppy researchers and later covered up by corrupt and venal scientific bodies in order to avoid embarrassment and secure funding.

            2 – Various multi-national bodies conspiring to use these oh-so-convenient findings to attempt to bilk the First World, primarily America, for $billions in additional aid.

            3 – And a host of politicians and other political interest parties jumping on the bandwagon for their own gains.

            Do I think these various things were planned or directly related to each other in the form of a massive conspiracy? Oh Hell no! If we could plan something like that, we’d have little need to…and would have achieved the mythical Mid-East Peace already. 😉

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s