Podcast: How Did Climate Science Get So Politicized?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 358.91: A Universe with Many Advanced Civilizations would have Many Accelerations (?)
Next: Scientists Grapple With 'Completely Out of Hand' Attacks on Climate Science
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 01:40 SAN DIEGO�Prominent climate researchers gathered here today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceNOW) to discuss a barrage of recent attacks on climate science and on climate researchers themselves. Science reporter Eli Kintisch sat down with panelist and Texas A&M climate scientist Gerald North to discuss the current atmosphere. Listen to their conversation here (mp3). http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_100219a.mp3
From: Frisbieinstein on 20 Feb 2010 06:33 On Feb 20, 2:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > SAN DIEGOProminent climate researchers gathered here today at the > annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of > Science (which publishes ScienceNOW) to discuss a barrage of recent > attacks on climate science and on climate researchers themselves. > Science reporter Eli Kintisch sat down with panelist and Texas A&M > climate scientist Gerald North to discuss the current atmosphere. Listen > to their conversation here (mp3). > http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_100219a.mp3 I once read Rush Limbaugh's "The Way It Oughta Be." Most of it was pretty bland stuff. There was one strange bit where he suggested that the television sets of poor people be seized, but surely he wasn't serious about that. The other deal was his writing on global global warming. It made no sense to me. I simply could not understand what he was driving at. After thinking about it for a while I figured it out. Rush found the very idea that the human race could be doing soemthing to damage the environment offensive. In his world this was not only impossible but outrageous to even suggest a thing. He assumed that his readership felt the same way, so there wasn't any discussion of the science or anything like that, it was all stuff like, "And they say we can damage the environment!" As far as Rush was concerned this was so absurd that there wasn't any need for any further debate. At the time there were not yet any conspiracy theories that scientists, politicians, and businessmen were colluding to get rich. Instead Rush says, in case we do screw up the earth, we'll come up with some technological fix. The suggestion that maybe we couldn't he considered an insult to ingenuity of man. As far as I can tell a lot of other people feel the same way. There is something about the very suggestion that people could be damaging the Earth that angers them. I don't understand this. So if it is some basic assumption, all the logic and evidence in the world isn't going to make any difference. They are going to believe what they believe regardless. Now after decades of this stuff they are convincing others that there is something to it. Someone needs to gather a public relations budget to deal with it. As a friend of mine once said, "money is more powerful than logic."
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 23:59 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:40:55 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > SAN DIEGO—Prominent climate researchers gathered here today at the > annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of > Science (which publishes ScienceNOW) to discuss a barrage of recent > attacks on climate science and on climate researchers themselves. > Science reporter Eli Kintisch sat down with panelist and Texas A&M > climate scientist Gerald North to discuss the current atmosphere. Listen > to their conversation here (mp3). > http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_100219a.mp3 I really don't care to listen to charletons and frauds whine and cry about how tough it is to be caught red handed as a damned liar. LOL! The whole bunch of them need to be fired.
From: Marvin the Martian on 21 Feb 2010 00:04 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:33:09 -0800, Frisbieinstein wrote: > After thinking about it for a while I figured it out. Umm... No, you didn't. I explain why you didn't think further on... > Rush found the very idea that the human race could be doing > soemthing to damage the environment offensive. Nice straw horse. You made that up yourself. Even if true, however, you now have a red herring (in that This argument is NOT the real objections to the AGW fraud...) and then you're making the fallacy fallacy. Gibbering fallacies is not in any way "logical".
From: Frisbieinstein on 21 Feb 2010 07:52
On Feb 21, 1:04 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:33:09 -0800, Frisbieinstein wrote: > > After thinking about it for a while I figured it out. > > Umm... No, you didn't. I explain why you didn't think further on... > > > Rush found the very idea that the human race could be doing > > soemthing to damage the environment offensive. > > Nice straw horse. You made that up yourself. Somehow I doubt that you have read Mr. Limbaugh's book. > > Even if true, however, you now have a red herring (in that This argument > is NOT the real objections to the AGW fraud...) and then you're making > the fallacy fallacy. > > Gibbering fallacies is not in any way "logical". |