Let's agree its a real problem, but it's also an opportunity for more control.
Or should we be good with handing control of the internet, as well, to the UN?
What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to
implement?
-----Original Message-----
From: chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 7:08 pm
Subject: RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.
That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories,
so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to
see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell
bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed
with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the
same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I
think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand
capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human
caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably,
but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true
on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from
authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept
us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate
change it gets trotted out as if it is informative.
I think what this paper really shows is just that part and parcel of debate is
to weave a narrative about your opponent: 'Obviously', if you are not convinced
by my water tight arguments then there must be something wrong with you.
Unfortunately the paper shows it by doing it. Thats not to say that it
shouldn't have been published, it should have. But the shame is that by not
publishing it, it has somehow earnt respect and currency.
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 12:15:26 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb
<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Sure, I also find it quite likely that
powerful fossil fuel companies are lobbying or
using even dirtier tricks to discredit
AGW theory. On the other hand, this
says nothing about the truth status of
AGW theory.
Doesn't it? If it weren't
true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be
needed to discredit it, would they? It could be
discredited like the flat earth, creationism,
and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories.
If that was true, the world would be free from
religious superstition
So do you classify religion as a conspiracy? Do you
think clergy are really all atheists and are just conspiring
to fool others?
I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies.
But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was
false, then oil companies would only need to falsify the models to
affect political change. If that were true, then it wouldn't be
the case that the majority of the world population is religious,
because most religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified
by the many fields of modern science, from cosmology to
archeology.
Religions make vague claims which are 'interpreted' and so cannot be
falsified - notice that even Bruno believes in a God and refers to angels
(of course he 'interprets' them very differently). But the oil companies
don't offer any corrections to the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 or the
insolation power or the measurements of temperature... They just attempt to
obfuscate the problem of climate prediction by pointing to minor gaps in
knowledge and saying, "What about THIS?": Maybe cosmic rays make clouds.
Why is the stratosphere cooler in the equatorial zone? Maybe weather
stations have been moved. Didn't temperatures rise before CO2 did in
prehistoric times? ...
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
