Climate Change

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

ok lets do this...

 

how many here claim to be research scientist posting on a site 

that has nothing to do with science arguing with those that 

apparently cant understand the research.

 

on the other hand, how many here are long term followers of spiritual paths

posting on a site dedicated to such..

 

Science is a religion - just read Professor David F. Noble's book "The Religion of Technology"

 

Now let's open our Science Bible to the pages of Exxon Mobils OWN internal religious documents:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

just scroll down on Professor Naomi Oreske's expose of EXXON's own internal documents versus their external advertisement "fake science" Junk claims. You been had!!

 

 

 

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/26/there-no-doubt-exxon-knew-co2-pollution-was-global-threat-late-1970s

Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

7 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

You been had!!

 

Actually you have, the result of all your pseudo education claims.

 

Reflected in trying to be right, instead of providing any understanding of a different view point.

 

,you can continue to clap with one hand now.

[whitesilk]

Just now, windwalker said:

you can continue to clap with one hand now.

 

I have pubic lice, so I've been doing that alot.

[Taoist Texts]

16 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

Professor Naomi Oreske's expose

that person is a proven liar

 

Controversies[edit]

Together with Erik Conway and Matthew Shindell, in 2008, Oreskes wrote the paper From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss: William Nierenberg, Global Warming, and the Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge^[24] which argued that William Nierenberg as chairman reframed a National Academy of Sciences committee report on climate change in 1983 into economic terms to avoid action on the topic. Nierenberg died in 2000 but a rebuttal was published in 2010 in the same journal^[25] which said the paper contradicted the historical report and there was no evidence that any committee members disagreed with the report, the evidence was that the report reflected the consensus at the time.^[26]

In 2015 Oreskes published an opinion piece in The Guardian, titled There is a New Form of Climate Denialism to Look Out For – So Don't Celebrate Yet^[27] where she said scientists who call for a continued use of nuclear energy are renewable-energy "deniers" and "myth" makers. She cited an article by four prominent climate scientists saying nuclear power must be used to combat climate change.^[28] An opinion piece in the New Yorker said she branded these four scientists as "climate deniers", and that her characterization was absurd, as they were amongst those who had done the most to push people to combat climate change.^[29]

 

[voidisyinyang]

20 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

that person is a proven liar

 

Controversies[edit]

Together with Erik Conway and Matthew Shindell, in 2008, Oreskes wrote the paper From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss: William Nierenberg, Global Warming, and the Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge^[24] which argued that William Nierenberg as chairman reframed a National Academy of Sciences committee report on climate change in 1983 into economic terms to avoid action on the topic. Nierenberg died in 2000 but a rebuttal was published in 2010 in the same journal^[25] which said the paper contradicted the historical report and there was no evidence that any committee members disagreed with the report, the evidence was that the report reflected the consensus at the time.^[26]

In 2015 Oreskes published an opinion piece in The Guardian, titled There is a New Form of Climate Denialism to Look Out For – So Don't Celebrate Yet^[27] where she said scientists who call for a continued use of nuclear energy are renewable-energy "deniers" and "myth" makers. She cited an article by four prominent climate scientists saying nuclear power must be used to combat climate change.^[28] An opinion piece in the New Yorker said she branded these four scientists as "climate deniers", and that her characterization was absurd, as they were amongst those who had done the most to push people to combat climate change.^[29]

 

yeah the scientists who study global warming are being literally attacked.

Perspectives of Scientists Who Become Targets: Naomi Oreskes

January 10, 2018

This series profiles scientists who have been threatened with legal attacks or harassed by politically and ideologically motivated groups.

https://www.csldf.org/2018/01/10/perspectives-scientists-become-targets-naomi-oreskes/

 

Like I said - I read Professor Oreskes' book on the history of plate tectonics - how the US was in "denial" about continental drift for decades. That was an excelllent book. I was promoting her work online BEFORE I ever read any of her global warming research.

 

Quote

After analyzing 928 scientific abstracts with the keywords “global climate change,” she found no disagreement in the scientific community that human activities were resulting in global warming. All of the papers reviewed agreed with the judgment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and other leading professional scientific societies and organizations on this point. Oreskes began receiving hate mail just days after her Science essay came out. Soon after that, James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), who has called global warming a “hoax,” attacked her on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Extremely hostile letters were sent to Science in response to the study.

 

So now she, Oreskes, is a Professor at Harvard.

Quote

 

Subsequently, Oreskes began working with Erik Conway, a science and technology historian at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab; their collaboration evolved into the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt (which was the basis for the 2014 documentary film directed by Robert Kenner). Oreskes and Conway exposed a network of ideologues that attacked scientific data on several issues: the ozone hole, acid rain, tobacco use, and climate change.

 

The common thread among these issues is that the scientific implications of each imply the need for some kind of government regulation as a solution, challenging the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism. A common tactic used by those resisting policy solutions and attacking the scientific data is to sow doubt and confusion about the science among the general public — a strategy still being used today with climate change.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[whitesilk]

From cite 24 above @Taoist Texts

 

Quote

Thus, while accepting the scientific conclusion that warming would occur, Nierenberg rejected the interpretation that it would be a problem. In later years, he would play a major role in political challenges to the scientific conclusions themselves. Reframing was Nierenberg's first step on the road to the deconstruction of scientific knowledge of climate change.

 

We are fine, you just confirmed my point that those in charge of everything in politics are those in charge of everything in politics.

[voidisyinyang]

11 minutes ago, whitesilk said:

From cite 24 above @Taoist Texts

 

 

We are fine, you just confirmed my point that those in charge of everything in politics are those in charge of everything in politics.

yep Western logic is a circular tautology! Science is a religion:

 

Quote

we had both noticed that some of the people who were challenging the scientific evidence of global warming had previously questioned the evidence of stratospheric ozone depletion and the harms of tobacco. Then we found evidence connecting them to the tobacco industry, and we knew we had a story.

 

The men in our story had dedicated their lives to science and technology in the cause of defending the U.S. against the Soviet threat. When the Cold War ended just a few years later, they just couldn’t lay down their arms. So they found a new threat in environmentalism, which they worried would lead to excessive government regulation of the marketplace, and put us on the slippery slope to socialism.

Really? Is that what the Cold War was really about? haha.

Quote

A key tactic used by the Merchants of Doubt was to invoke the ideals of fairness and balance to persuade the media to give equal time to their views. Even the great Edward R. Murrow fell prey to this tactic, giving the tobacco industry equal time to argue that the facts regarding the harms of tobacco were not established. Murrow’s death from lung cancer a few years later was both tragic and ironic, for during World War II Murrow had been an articulate opponent of meretricious balance in reporting. Murrow was not ashamed to take the side of democracy, and felt no need to try to get the Nazi perspective.

yeah how ironic that the CIA was formed out of the Nazis and the CIA brought over 1000 Nazis into the US science community - plus more into Latin America.

Quote

Scientists predicted more than a century ago that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels could cause global warming. But as with all scientific predictions, it’s possible that some other cause could have the same effect.

yes it's possible but...

Quote

if the Sun were causing global warming, we’d expect both the troposphere and the stratosphere to warm, as heat comes into the atmosphere from outer space. But if the warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted at the surface and accumulating in the lower atmosphere, then we expect the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. Scientists have shown that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. In fact, because the boundary between these two atmospheric layers is in part defined by temperature, that boundary is now moving upward. In other words, the whole structure of our atmosphere is changing.

https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/home/faq/

Oops - who you gonna believe?

A small network of Corporate Junk PR scientists ?

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

that person is a proven liar

 

Controversies[edit]

Together with Erik Conway and Matthew Shindell, in 2008, Oreskes wrote the paper From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss: William Nierenberg, Global Warming, and the Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge^[24] which argued that William Nierenberg as chairman reframed a National Academy of Sciences committee report on climate change in 1983 into economic terms to avoid action on the topic. Nierenberg died in 2000 but a rebuttal was published in 2010 in the same journal^[25] which said the paper contradicted the historical report and there was no evidence that any committee members disagreed with the report, the evidence was that the report reflected the consensus at the time.^[26]

In 2015 Oreskes published an opinion piece in The Guardian, titled There is a New Form of Climate Denialism to Look Out For – So Don't Celebrate Yet^[27] where she said scientists who call for a continued use of nuclear energy are renewable-energy "deniers" and "myth" makers. She cited an article by four prominent climate scientists saying nuclear power must be used to combat climate change.^[28] An opinion piece in the New Yorker said she branded these four scientists as "climate deniers", and that her characterization was absurd, as they were amongst those who had done the most to push people to combat climate change.^[29]

 

 

Wikipedia is proven to be controlled by the fake "skeptic" crowd.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

 

Quote

 

Rebuttal

Naomi Oreskes, from the Department of History and Science Studies Program at the University of California, noted in an article in Science in 2004 that "The science consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities...IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."^[15] The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. Eleven countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position.^[16] Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus.^[17]

Skeptics' Rebuttal

Oreskes' 2004 article on scientific consensus was immediately attacked as flawed. Benny Peiser repeated the same study and asserted that he found 34 peer-reviewed studies rejecting the opinion that Earth's climate is affected by human activities.^[18]

Rebuttal

However, a closer inspection shows that most did not reject the consensus at all, and Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes' study.^[19] The same argument was later made by the Viscount Monckton of Benchley, who showed five studies that he believed should be included in Oreskes' survey.^[20] However, two were reviews, not articles, and one was not peer-reviewed. A fourth reinforces the consensus opinion, and the fifth was updated by its author to affirm the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change in the past century.^[21]

 

 

so the skeptics are not holding up so far with their "rebuttals" against Oreskes

 

So the Neirenberg rebuttal?

 

Quote

 

When I talked to Bill Nierenberg, who I wrote about in the book, you could just mention the 1960s student protests and his face would turn visibly red. He carried around with him a kind of visceral anger about those student protests that he never let go of, even 20, 30, 40 years later. I think some people thought the student movement was spitting on everything that was great about America and American life. If you had that reaction, you may tend to be hostile to any environmental claim.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/qa-merchants-doubt-author-origins-persistence-climate-denialism

 

Not that surprising is it.

Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

8 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

Actually you have, the result of all your pseudo education claims.

 

Reflected in trying to be right, instead of providing any understanding of a different view point.

 

,you can continue to clap with one hand now.

 

 

Quote

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 12% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

oops.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE

 

 

 

[flowing hands]

When I started this thread I didn't think we would get sixteen pages!!!!!

 

For all those Trump supporters on the thread I see Michael Cohen is dealing out the dirt on Trumps behaviour. I think Trumps got more to worry about than not going to the Paris Climate meeting

Edited February 28, 2019 by flowing hands
typo

[Stosh]

Well if we're relying on consensus to determine fact, then Taoists are misguided for a fact. 

 

It's like that game show family feud, you don't have to be right, you just have to say what others do.

[voidisyinyang]

3 hours ago, Stosh said:

Well if we're relying on consensus to determine fact, then Taoists are misguided for a fact. 

 

It's like that game show family feud, you don't have to be right, you just have to say what others do.

Yep it's like in math class when the teacher takes roll call - if enough people raise their hands at once then 2 plus 2 = 5!

[ralis]

6 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

Yep it's like in math class when the teacher takes roll call - if enough people raise their hands at once then 2 plus 2 = 5!

 

‘As you have so aptly stated is that self censorship is the norm for many. 

[ralis]

[voidisyinyang]

On 2/28/2019 at 11:54 AM, Stosh said:

Well if we're relying on consensus to determine fact, then Taoists are misguided for a fact. 

 

It's like that game show family feud, you don't have to be right, you just have to say what others do.

Consensus? That's so 70s!!

Quote

Newly released documents show that scientists at Exxon Oil Corporation conducted research on climate change and the greenhouse effect in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Their conclusions were in accord with mainstream scientific groups in academia, NASA, NOAA, and the Department of Energy, showing that global warming posed a serious problem, with potential "catastrophic effects."

https://insideclimatenews.org/search_documents?field_related_project=41124

 

http://climatedeception.net/

 

Quote

“There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”

Roger Cohen Exxon Sciences Lab Director 1982

Banerjee, Neela. Exxon: The Road Not Taken (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 692-696). InsideClimate News. Kindle Edition.

 

 

http://killeroceans.com/sellpdf.pdf

 

Shell Oil - 1980s internal document on global warming.

 

1956 Global Warming science "Excursions in Science" show

Johns Hopkins Physics Professor Dr. Gilbert Plass on human-caused global warming

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

On 2/28/2019 at 9:39 AM, flowing hands said:

When I started this thread I didn't think we would get sixteen pages!!!!!

 

For all those Trump supporters on the thread I see Michael Cohen is dealing out the dirt on Trumps behaviour. I think Trumps got more to worry about than not going to the Paris Climate meeting

A lot more to worry about. Sit back and buckle up. The Diagram of Doom:

[Stosh]

22 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Yep it's like in math class when the teacher takes roll call - if enough people raise their hands at once then 2 plus 2 = 5!

Well if this is actually what you think , then there is no chance we would ever come to an accord. I've seen plenty of your non-standard views and if you believed ,that numbers of people persuaded to an idea, determined the fact of the matter. then your views would also be outnumbered. 

So the way it appears to me , is , so that you do not have to conclude the point I made is correct , you are going to pretend otherwise.

It wouldn't change any factual argument  , but its traditional to deny everything the opposing team says ,even to the point of absurdity, like we just saw.  

Edited March 1, 2019 by Stosh

[voidisyinyang]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:45 PM, Stosh said:

Well if this is actually what you think ,

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????=

really?

 

[windwalker]

On 2/27/2019 at 10:42 AM, ralis said:

 

Are you in an ESL class? Voidisyinyang has been explaining why the paid shills are wrong and yet you fail to respond to that. Have you taken any science classes? 

 

 

always on the attack....to be expected....

Voidesyinyang , has explained nothing. 

 

He's stuck in defending his own misinformation with others misinformation.  

you can join him in clapping with one hand,  both would make 2 hands except they are both left.

2 lefts can not make one right.

 

I do find it odd for those claiming to be educated not being able to intuitit meaning.

 

It means for the most part that those unable to do so haven't been living outside the US  

for any extended period of times....

Edited March 4, 2019 by windwalker

[Stosh]

On 3/2/2019 at 9:28 PM, voidisyinyang said:

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????=

really?

 

Well how the heck am I supposed to respond, if you are both saying that, truth is subjective and that it's not? There are folks here that do not think there is truth.

 

I have wished more than once, that everyone had to make some sort of statement of their stances , to which they could be held. Like, "I am a Hindu," is simple, or "I believe that we have free will".

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Well how the heck am I supposed to respond, if you are both saying that, truth is subjective and that it's not? There are folks here that do not think there is truth.

 

I have wished more than once, that everyone had to make some sort of statement of their stances , to which they could be held. Like, "I am a Hindu," is simple, or "I believe that we have free will".

OK I recommend reading the book "Mind and Nature: A necessary unity" by Gregory Bateson whose dad coined the term genetics. Bateson, Gregory, was a famed anthropologist but the book is about logical paradoxes and ecology. He doesn't "solve" the problems he is addressing but the book is a real mind-bender.

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

OK I recommend reading the book "Mind and Nature: A necessary unity" by Gregory Bateson whose dad coined the term genetics. Bateson, Gregory, was a famed anthropologist but the book is about logical paradoxes and ecology. He doesn't "solve" the problems he is addressing but the book is a real mind-bender.

 

I have been reading it off and on and if I remember correctly, he delves into the "double bind" in that book. When I first read about the "double bind", it was a real shock and eye opener!

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

OK I recommend reading the book "Mind and Nature: A necessary unity" by Gregory Bateson whose dad coined the term genetics. Bateson, Gregory, was a famed anthropologist but the book is about logical paradoxes and ecology. He doesn't "solve" the problems he is addressing but the book is a real mind-bender.

  I do not have to read the book , since there is no such existing thing as a paradox, outside of a poorly constructed mental model. 

Besides , I am not going to read every book that someone else thought was good. ( I don't even read all the books that I think would be good.)

Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending  me the book anyway  And if Ralis approves of it , it probably is all about hating america.  well, He is often looking for authors who he can point at so as to lend credibility that he doesn't think he has. ( although I attribute him or you more than.. some guy who I cannot confront. if the author wants to back up his ideas, let 'im show up.)

 

For instance , I produced a geometry 'experiment' showing that in an expanding universe of unknown limit, one cannot trace a pair of vectors back to the origin- center, because any spot could be construed as the 'center'. 

I presented how this conclusion can be arrived at with so simple as a single sheet of paper in a two dimensional format.  But one could determine the center relative to the boundaries etc. Nobody showed up to dispute it , because they like thinking its a miraculous paradox PROVEN by science. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Stosh

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, Stosh said:

Either you understand and agree with a books content, to the extent that you can convey the salient points OR, you don't understand what you are reading for some reason , yet are recommending  me the book anyway

Really - so we don't have the option of "understanding and NOT agreeing"? Strange. Very strange indeed.

 

[MooNiNite]

remove government from the equation. Lower taxes. Allow millions of small businesses to thrive and innovate.

The greatest environmental savers come in the form of innovation.