Climategate

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

So you're not equating AGW with evolution and climate skepticism with intelligent design. My apologies for the misrepresentation.

Apology accepted.

The post I replied to:

I thought junk science behind climate change had been debunked

I was saying that the science behind climate change has been debunked to the same degree that the science behind evolution has been debunked.

Though there are some parallels one could draw between AGW denialist institutions such as the Heartland Institute and groups who deny evolution.

Number of national or major science groups/institutions that support an alternate theory over evolution: zero.
Number of national or major science groups/institutions that support an alternate theory over AGW: zero.

[troutman]

Podcasts:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michae..._climate_wars/

Our guest this week is Michael Mann, the prominent climatologist and, above all, leading defender of his field—and himself—against political attacks.

Mann is out with a new book this month, which details his ten year battle against political attacks and misrepresentations. It's called The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.

And already, people are attacking it on Amazon.com without having even read it.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/eugeni...ate_education/

Eugenie Scott is no stranger to Point of Inquiry, or to the secular community. Her endless travails to defend the teaching of evolution have won her immense respect.

And that's why, when Scott and her National Center for Science Education take on a new initiative, everybody listens. So for this Point of Inquiry episode, we invited Eugenie to break some news about why she is venturing into a very new and very challenging area—defending the teaching of accurate climate change science in schools from a mounting ideological assault—and how you can help her out.

[the battle vs. evolution in the class-rooms is much different than the resistance to climate change education]

http://ncse.com/climate

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by troutman

Ok, show us, don't tell us. How have the details been debunked?

The link isn't working now, but when/if it does, it itemizes the forged documents contents and corrects it. Not to mention that all of the "damning evidence" is not actually supported by anything in the real Heartland documents that were stolen.

http://fakegate.org/bast-on-forged-memo/

In the meantime, this link works and is very informative in respect to both the Gleick affair and what Heartland does in their own words. They certainly don't seem that secretive about it.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland/

And the Charles Koch Foundation isn't happy that crap has been made up about them. But the media would prefer to ignore them. Doesn't make good "news", I presume.

http://www.charleskochfoundationfact...isinformation/

[Tinordi]

Conservatives/climate change deniers living in a false reality, science explains cognitive dissonance:

http://www.alternet.org/story/154709...warming?page=1

Coles notes for those who should read this but most likely wont to keep their confirmation bias thoroughly intact:

The more educated Conservatives are, the more likely they are to deny climate change. (weird)

The reason is that the more educated they are the more associated they feel with their ideology.

This ideology confirms 2 strong beliefs countenance to accepting global warming: 1) they are afraid of change and have very rigid ideas of what the world should look like 2) conservative individualism is fundamentally attacked because this model has failed the greater good

And this ideology is cultivated by the fact that conservatives live in a reality bubble supported by news agencies such as Fox News which reinforce their bias and openly discourages critical thinking on different viewpoints.

As a result you have alot of educated white men basically acting like idiots. Unfortunately it's in respect to the most important environmental issue humanity has faced with severe consequences for the biosphere and for us.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

And this ideology is cultivated by the fact that conservatives live in a reality bubble supported by news agencies such as Fox News which reinforce their bias and openly discourages critical thinking on different viewpoints.

Agree with parts of the article...this one seems a bit silly to state. Confirmation bias is pretty well known I think. People watch agencies that reinforce their bias: Conservatives watch conservative stations while liberals watch liberal stations.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Conservatives/climate change deniers living in a false reality, science explains cognitive dissonance:

http://www.alternet.org/story/154709...warming?page=1

Coles notes for those who should read this but most likely wont to keep their confirmation bias thoroughly intact:

The more educated Conservatives are, the more likely they are to deny climate change. (weird)

The reason is that the more educated they are the more associated they feel with their ideology.

This ideology confirms 2 strong beliefs countenance to accepting global warming: 1) they are afraid of change and have very rigid ideas of what the world should look like 2) conservative individualism is fundamentally attacked because this model has failed the greater good

And this ideology is cultivated by the fact that conservatives live in a reality bubble supported by news agencies such as Fox News which reinforce their bias and openly discourages critical thinking on different viewpoints.

As a result you have alot of educated white men basically acting like idiots. Unfortunately it's in respect to the most important environmental issue humanity has faced with severe consequences for the biosphere and for us.

Couldn't you make the same conclusions about non-conservaties as well. Don't you think that the more likely situation is that there are several competing scientific theories to the effects of global warming and the cause of these effects.

This article states:

It turns out that the case for human-caused global warming is based on simple and fundamental physics. We've known about the greenhouse effect for over one hundred years. And we've known that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas, a greenhouse gas. Some of the key experiments on this, by the Irishman John Tyndall, actually occurred in the year 1859, which is the same year that Darwin published On the Origin of Species.

Alternative theories are also based on science. Personally, I think the AGW theory is the most likely, and even if it isn't correct we should push towards renewable resources as quickly as possible for many many reasons. However, to make a statement that essentially boils down to: "anyone who educates themselves on alternate theories is stupid" is wrong for so many reasons.

The fact this issue has been totally consumed by politics is sad.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by kirant

Agree with parts of the article...this one seems a bit silly to state. Confirmation bias is pretty well known I think. People watch agencies that reinforce their bias: Conservatives watch conservative stations while liberals watch liberal stations.

This article would argue that watching Fox is actually quite different from just seeking confirmation bias in other news sources. The article states that those who watch fox are actually much more misinformed on events than others. It goes so far to suggest that those who seek out Fox are actually seeking out a reality that does not exist.

So it is actually wrong to suggest that "Liberal" news stations are the opposite of Fox and therefore should be treated in the same way as an equal opposite. The article says that no, the fundamental viewing habits among those who watch stations that aren't Fox are to become more informed, for those who watch Fox it's to become more insulated from information and satisfied that their ideology infact holds.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by blankall

Couldn't you make the same conclusions about non-conservaties as well. Don't you think that the more likely situation is that there are several competing scientific theories to the effects of global warming and the cause of these effects.

This article states:


Alternative theories are also based on science. Personally, I think the AGW theory is the most likely, and even if it isn't correct we should push towards renewable resources as quickly as possible for many many reasons. However, to make a statement that essentially boils down to: "anyone who educates themselves on alternate theories is stupid" is wrong for so many reasons.

The fact this issue has been totally consumed by politics is sad.

There are no other competing theories that have any actually rigour, evidence to support them and subsequent merit. The fact that you even mention this is further proof positive that you don't understand the base facts of this issue.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

There are no other competing theories that have any actually rigour, evidence to support them and subsequent merit. The fact that you even mention this is further proof positive that you don't understand the base facts of this issue.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you or states there is a remote possibility you are not 100% correct is too stupid to understand facts.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you or states there is a remote possibility you are not 100% correct is too stupid to understand facts.

On this issue, essentially yes. Prove otherwise. Give me science and facts that support that there are other meritorious theories.

I'll give a head start, solar intensity variance is not a theory with any merit.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This article would argue that watching Fox is actually quite different from just seeking confirmation bias in other news sources. The article states that those who watch fox are actually much more misinformed on events than others. It goes so far to suggest that those who seek out Fox are actually seeking out a reality that does not exist.

So it is actually wrong to suggest that "Liberal" news stations are the opposite of Fox and therefore should be treated in the same way as an equal opposite. The article says that no, the fundamental viewing habits among those who watch stations that aren't Fox are to become more informed, for those who watch Fox it's to become more insulated from information and satisfied that their ideology infact holds.

I wasn't talking about a specific scenario. I do see your point though if we're looking at the US (and wasn't aware that it was talking about Americans in specific before posting that. It was made by reading your post on its own). Reading the article indicates that they don't claim it extends beyond their suggest Republican/Fox connection.

I'm not sure there's enough data to extrapolate outside the network. I think the problem may be with Fox itself just being a horrible news station, not the conservatives that subscribe to it.

[Tinordi]

That may be true but I'm a believer in that the media is essentially a service selling ideas and viewpoints that people will consume. If that's true then it works against the push argument that Fox is brainwashing people and moves toward the pull model that the people that watch Fox are actually demanding this type of programming. Further reinforcing the argument that conservatives are not actually looking for information but instead insulation and satisfaction.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

On this issue, essentially yes. Prove otherwise. Give me science and facts that support that there are other meritorious theories.

I'll give a head start, solar intensity variance is not a theory with any merit.

You cannot prove that any of the theories are correct. If you think you can, then you don't understand the meaning of the word proof.

[Tinordi]

Another classic obfuscation tactic. You know exactly what I was asking of you. Instead you're now trying to divert into some bottomless pit of argument.

I'll spell it out clearer for you then:

Name me two other theories other than human emitted GHG emissions are forcing temperature variations that are supported by rigorous scientific method and findings which offer an alternative explanation to the fact that the Earth is warming.

[GP_Matt]

What does the study say about an educated conservative who does believe that AGW is occurring?

Out of curiosity, has anyone undertaken any reputable studies looking into the benefits of a warmer earth? Not looking to provoke, just curious as I can picture some pretty big advantages, but have no idea how they stack up against the disadvantages.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

What does the study say about an educated conservative who does believe that AGW is occurring?

Out of curiosity, has anyone undertaken any reputable studies looking into the benefits of a warmer earth? Not looking to provoke, just curious as I can picture some pretty big advantages, but have no idea how they stack up against the disadvantages.

There's been multiple very large research efforts that have attempted to quantify the net impact of climate change. They all agree that there might some short term benefits but the net impact is very deep and very bad. The Earth's natural systems just aren't equipped to sustain this fast of a rate of change.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Another classic obfuscation tactic. You know exactly what I was asking of you. Instead you're now trying to divert into some bottomless pit of argument.

I'll spell it out clearer for you then:

Name me two other theories other than human emitted GHG emissions are forcing temperature variations that are supported by rigorous scientific method and findings which offer an alternative explanation to the fact that the Earth is warming.

Waste of time. You've clearly already dismissed the alternative hypotheses before even looking into them. The fact you've taken the "Earth is warming" as a definite conclusion says enough.

I believe that human induced global warming is probably happening and that, regardless, we should take steps to reduce carbon use. Am I open to new ideas? Absolutely. Should we be encouraging freedom of thought on the issue? Absolutely.

You've taken my stance on discussion of the issue and decided: "I'm not supporting your view 100%, so therefore I'm part of the problem."

Once again, it's not the content of the AGW crowd I disagree with, it's their methods and the hijacking of the scientific process. If you really just want your guy to win the next election just say so.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Out of curiosity, has anyone undertaken any reputable studies looking into the benefits of a warmer earth? Not looking to provoke, just curious as I can picture some pretty big advantages, but have no idea how they stack up against the disadvantages.

Been quite a bit done all in the context of adaptation to a changing climate and projected changes.

As you say as well as possible detriments there are opportunities also.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-science...ssessments/132

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by blankall

Waste of time. You've clearly already dismissed the alternative hypotheses before even looking into them. The fact you've taken the "Earth is warming" as a definite conclusion says enough.

I believe that human induced global warming is probably happening and that, regardless, we should take steps to reduce carbon use. Am I open to new ideas? Absolutely. Should we be encouraging freedom of thought on the issue? Absolutely.

You've taken my stance on discussion of the issue and decided: "I'm not supporting your view 100%, so therefore I'm part of the problem."

Once again, it's not the content of the AGW crowd I disagree with, it's their methods and the hijacking of the scientific process. If you really just want your guy to win the next election just say so.

You're right, it is a waste of time. Because there's no other theories that hold up to scrutiny.

The Earth warming is an indisputable fact over the past 120 years.

I've taken your stance as agnostic to which I've replied well show me why you could be agnostic because there's certainly no evidence to support it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You're right, it is a waste of time. Because there's no other theories that hold up to scrutiny.

The Earth warming is an indisputable fact over the past 120 years.

I've taken your stance as agnostic to which I've replied well show me why you could be agnostic because there's certainly no evidence to support it.

120 years? Even the least conservative AGW forcasts don't show global warming commencing for anything more than the past 80-90 years. Once again, I suggest you look at the problem with greater scruitiny and/or reevaluate the sources you are using. Either that or your purposely exagerating information.