Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by randomscooter View Post
    Isn't it interesting that people put so much weight on the opinions of the uninformed rather than seeking out the truth. Some of us are just so darned sure of ourselves that it never occurs to us to step back and put our own views to the challenge. It's much easier to seek out "our own kind", in this case information that supports what we want the truth to be, even if it's only the opinions of the uninformed.

    An excerpt regarding "skepticism":



    I would suggest that Americans' skepticism, as expressed through the results of polls, may be of the above sort. And not just those Americans on one side of an issue, but rather all of us. We all need to step back occasionally and challenge our beliefs. On the question of whether most, or even many, Americans will do so, I remain, well, skeptical.
    There was a time many years ago that I believed all of this global warming caused by man nonsense. Then I became skeptical on the matter and decided to look into who's behind the notion and the great amount of money to be made by promoting it. In essence I questioned my skepticism.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by redhawk View Post
      Most Americans are not too concerned about anything other than themselves and they're too short sighted to realize the effect that climate change will have on them and theirs long term.
      I do wish that Gallup would include a question as to why people don't consider it a pressing problem.

      I don't think skepticism is do either to short sightedness nor are Americans the exception.

      European polls show the same low priority of Global Warming. In the case of this Gallup poll six other environmental issues were placed ahead in priority so I don't think its that Americans don't care about the environment either.

      Although the percent did not vary by education level, it did vary quite a bit by age group with more older Americans not seeing it as a big deal.

      Personally I think as one who has done some analysis I'm the in the minority of skeptics.
      I think most just know a snake oil salesman when the hear one.
      When you try the hard sell and continually make alarmist predictions that don't come true and point to single weather events that have always occurred in the recent past as your "evidence", people tend to tune you out.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
        When you try the hard sell and continually make alarmist predictions that don't come true and point to single weather events that have always occurred in the recent past as your "evidence", people tend to tune you out.
        Good point. My own opinions aside, I would say that some of the "man made change" folks in the discussion (not here on this board, but in the discussion at large) hurt the case badly, almost irreparably, by making shrill and desperate pronouncements.

        It's a sure sign of a weak position when folks gradually resort to:

        Ostracism (ask any researcher who is a "non-believer");
        Censorship (as discussed above)
        Violence (our friend in Rochester who helped start this thread).

        I have not seen much of these kinds of behaviors from the at-large "skeptic" community. That's worth noting.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
          I do wish that Gallup would include a question as to why people don't consider it a pressing problem.

          I don't think skepticism is do either to short sightedness nor are Americans the exception.

          European polls show the same low priority of Global Warming. In the case of this Gallup poll six other environmental issues were placed ahead in priority so I don't think its that Americans don't care about the environment either.

          Although the percent did not vary by education level, it did vary quite a bit by age group with more older Americans not seeing it as a big deal.

          Personally I think as one who has done some analysis I'm the in the minority of skeptics.
          I think most just know a snake oil salesman when the hear one.
          When you try the hard sell and continually make alarmist predictions that don't come true and point to single weather events that have always occurred in the recent past as your "evidence", people tend to tune you out.
          If it means they are going to be inconvenienced, less comfortable or pay more, they tune you out.
          "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
            I think most just know a snake oil salesman when the hear one.
            Only, as Hawk stated, if what is being sold them is of no use to them, inconveniences them, or costs them more.

            On the other hand, if it seems to make life easier, more fun, and is cheap, then they're the first to buy in.

            Kinda reminds me of our love affair with petroleum. Now that we've all been suckered in, a whole lot of people aren't willing to face the facts.
            Scooting here and there
            Through the woods and up the peaks
            Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


            "Pushing the limits of easy."™

            Comment


            • Originally posted by randomscooter View Post
              Only, as Hawk stated, if what is being sold them is of no use to them, inconveniences them, or costs them more.

              On the other hand, if it seems to make life easier, more fun, and is cheap, then they're the first to buy in.

              Kinda reminds me of our love affair with petroleum. Now that we've all been suckered in, a whole lot of people aren't willing to face the facts.
              And those facts are?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rollinslover64 View Post
                And those facts are?
                I think we all have to find the answers for ourselves. Why would anyone listen to me, or to anyone else on this forum? The only thing I would suggest is that we each challenge our own preconceptions.
                Scooting here and there
                Through the woods and up the peaks
                Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                Comment


                • If global warming doesn't kill you, the price of oil and everything it affects will.

                  Have a nice day, while you still can.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                    I think most just know a snake oil salesman when the hear one.
                    A few more words on this snake oil salesman analogy.

                    The notion that those who are trying to warn us of global climate change and it's implications are snake oil salesmen just doesn't make any sense. These people are trying to "sell us" something that is very hard to swallow, very difficult to accept, very difficult to understand, will have serious consequences on our lives, etc, etc. A truly lousy product for a snake oil salesman to try and make a living from.

                    As a rule, a snake oil salesman is always trying to sell you something that's "too good to be true". Who's trying to do that in this debate? It's the people who are saying everything is just fine, we don't have to worry about a thing. In other words, those who are protecting the status quo. Protecting their own vested interests.

                    <sigh>
                    Scooting here and there
                    Through the woods and up the peaks
                    Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                    "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                    Comment


                    • It's beginning to become apparent to me that Global Warming is beginning to split between science and politics. It seems that the Political side is ramping up and gaining the edge.

                      When governments start telling the IPPC how to frame the argument it is no longer science but politics.



                      The US and British gov't don't think the scientific message on economic consequences is alarmist enough. Its a hard sell and needs to be beefed up.

                      Even the IPCC is starting to split. The IPCC "summary" to governments is more politics and increasing contrasts with the scientific message contained in the main report.



                      Its gotten so bad that one of the IPCC economists asked to have his name removed from the summary report because it was too alarmist.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                        It's beginning to become apparent to me that Global Warming is beginning to split between science and politics. It seems that the Political side is ramping up and gaining the edge.

                        When governments start telling the IPPC how to frame the argument it is no longer science but politics.



                        The US and British gov't don't think the scientific message on economic consequences is alarmist enough. Its a hard sell and needs to be beefed up.

                        Even the IPCC is starting to split. The IPCC "summary" to governments is more politics and increasing contrasts with the scientific message contained in the main report.



                        Its gotten so bad that one of the IPCC economists asked to have his name removed from the summary report because it was too alarmist.
                        The problem is that people don't give a rats a** about climate change because they think it won't affect them and evidently they're too self centered and single minded to worry about how it will affect their progeny in the future. So, in order to try to get them to act you have to show the worst case scenario and accelerate it.

                        As far as I'm concerned it's not alarmist enough. As far as I'm concerned, it should be something like. "Hey you self centered idiot. Your progeny is going to be wiped out because you're a greedy, egocentric a**hole".

                        I see the change, I feel the change, it's inevitable. The question is not "if" it's "when". I suppose I should get some satisfaction in the fact that with humans having killed themselves off, the other species will no longer face extinction.
                        "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by redhawk View Post
                          I see the change, I feel the change, it's inevitable. The question is not "if" it's "when". I suppose I should get some satisfaction in the fact that with humans having killed themselves off, the other species will no longer face extinction.
                          Don't worry you're young enough to see the end of the Global Warming movement. Its death seems to be accelerating. I doubt it will last more than another 15 years. Hopefully scientific embarrassment will be quickly followed by arrests as the Rochester Professor suggests. Only this time it will be of those who "thought" they knew the future and will say and do anything to get their faulty agenda passed. Gore should top the list.

                          Comment


                          • A very timely essay about what bothers skeptics and how to convert them in 14 steps.

                            Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
                            Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
                            Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
                            Step 4 – Stop the hate.
                            Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
                            Step 6 – Answer questions.
                            Step 7 -*Stop enjoying catastrophes.
                            Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
                            Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
                            Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
                            Step 11 – Stop lying.* If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
                            Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
                            Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
                            Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?

                            Here is the whole essay: He expands upon his views.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by redhawk View Post
                              The problem is that people don't give a rats a** about climate change because they think it won't affect them and evidently they're too self centered and single minded to worry about how it will affect their progeny in the future. So, in order to try to get them to act you have to show the worst case scenario and accelerate it.
                              I think most people are concerned with day to day life and have to fuction in society as it is at this time, not 200 years ago.

                              You sell a product, is it shipped via covered wagon? Do you lay the food out in the sun to dry? Do you walk everywhere?

                              Comment


                              • A letter from "a reader", anonymous as best I can tell. We are encouraged to "enjoy" it. Clearly it was intended as humor.

                                I did think it was funny. It would be equally funny if it were re-cast from the perspective of a global warming advocate. But, if taken beyond it's intent of producing the medicine of laughter, equally unhelpful.

                                Yes, it was funny. But I certainly would hope that this isn't the kind of material that is being used to rally the troops on the global climate change deniers side. If so then it would foment the very sort of anger, hatred, etc, that it suggests exists on the "other side".

                                Yes, it was funny. But I surely hope nobody thinks it serious. If so, then it would confirm the very pseudo-skepticism that was mentioned in an earlier post:
                                ".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."
                                Yes, it was funny. And I believe that, so long as it is seen for what it is, it will do no harm.

                                Scooting here and there
                                Through the woods and up the peaks
                                Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                                "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X