Global warming debate

[acm95301]

This new topic isn't designed to debate Global warming, but instead to enlighten everybody to quality of the "argument"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_ ... te_e_mails

If we presume Global warming to be real, and as Dire as has been suggested. Why are Pro-global warming advocates and scientist afraid of skepicism? Science doent thrive in secrecy but in open exchange of ideas.

If we are to believe in Global warming, Why isn't the debate focused on American Beef production....Cows make more greenhouse gases than cars do.

There are many reasons to reduce foreign dependece on oil, for cleaner air, for cleaner water etc....I object to the politics of the Global warming debate..the near religious fevor of the debate.

[Greg_Cornish]

I had a 11 oz steak the other night. I'm doing my best to rid them of this earth.

[swank]

so out of a million words and a thousand e-mails some science guys tried to explain cheating for their cause. discredit those particular people and move on. think next time about both sides probably doing the same sort of thing. get your info from varied sources then above all make up your own mind.

[Vince E]

I wholeheartedly agree...get your info from varied sources. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that even that isn't going produce info from people who make it there life's work to find the truth. They just say what they need to to keep getting funds and lab time.

A couple of quotes from a "varied source":

For several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays it’s a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies.

I had met Peter Duesberg in person only at the Conference, but I had been quite familiar with him from many videos. What had always stuck in my mind was his expression of surprise, astonishment, sheer disbelief, as he told what happened to him after he questioned whether HIV could be the cause of AIDS:

I had all the students I wanted . . . lab space . . . grants . . . . elected to the National Academy. . . . became California Scientist of the Year. All my papers were published. I could do no wrong . . . professionally . . . until I started questioning . . . that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Then everything changed.

What happened then was that he got no more grants; his manuscripts were rejected without substantive critiques, just that "everyone knows that HIV causes AIDS"; Robert Gallo, who earlier had talked of Duesberg’s distinction as a leading retrovirologist, now publicly called him dishonest on scientific matters. Defenders of the mainstream view have even held Duesberg responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Africans and have described him as the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

What had Duesberg done to bring about that radical change?

Absolutely nothing. He was doing science just as before: gathering data, documenting his sources, making his analyses, presenting his conclusions for comment by others. Of course Duesberg was surprised that suddenly he had gone from lauded leading scientist to discredited crackpot.

Of course Duesberg was surprised, because his experience of suddenly being sent beyond the pale was obviously an aberration. Science isn’t like this. Science is done by the objective self-correcting scientific method. Peer review is impersonal and impartial. Arguments are substantive, not ad hominem. This experience must be unprecedented, unique.

But science nowadays IS like this: Disagree with the conventional contemporary scientific wisdom and you won’t get grants, won’t get published, will be compared to Holocaust deniers.

And it really wasn’t always this way. Nowadays "science," "pure research," has become cutthroat in the extreme, and there’s much corner-cutting and sheer dishonesty in science. For example, NIH newsletters routinely name specific individuals who are being barred from seeking grants for some specified period because of some act of dishonesty.

There was no need, in the good not-so-old days, for a federal Office of Research Integrity – a designation that George Orwell would have relished. But now we do have such an Office, and at colleges there are Centers for Research Ethics, and publishers put out journals like Accountability in Research – there’s a burgeoning young academic industry devoted to telling scientists how to behave properly.

That’s what science has come to. Genuine science, the search for better understanding, has been hijacked by self-interest and vested interests and is now captive to knowledge monopolies and research cartels: A single theory exerts dogmatic control over grants, publications, jobs, promotions.

From this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html


I don't have ANY faith in so called "experts" and when I want info I will seek out the ones who are NOT repeating the mainstream mantras. Even if they are wrong it's better mental exercise than following along like a sheep.

[Ringer]

Al Gore says the polar ice cap will be GONE in 5-6 years so we can just wait and see if that happens. Don't give small time African dictators a trillion dollars and do absolutely nothing. We could all stop driving today and the earth would not change a fraction in 6 years anyway. China, India and Mexico are the biggest polluters in the world and they have all refused to cooperate so this is a joke. There will be no climate change in 6 years and Africa can't make a bit of difference so why would we drain the wealth of the nation and give it to them? Reminds me of the Nigerian email scams. The science is irrelevant if we can do nothing to change the course in the short term.

[Jeff C.]

I wholeheartedly agree...get your info from varied sources. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that even that isn't going produce info from people who make it there life's work to find the truth. They just say what they need to to keep getting funds and lab time.

I don't have ANY faith in so called "experts" and when I want info I will seek out the ones who are NOT repeating the mainstream mantras. Even if they are wrong it's better mental exercise than following along like a sheep.

Well I'm glad to see you admit that there are two well defined sides in this argument.

On the one side is the "mainstream" composed of nearly every climate scientist in the world who, after spending a decade or more in an educational system that stresses objectivity and scientific ethics and sacrifice for the advancement of scientific knowledge, have been performing meticulous investigation of this issue and have found the evidence overwhelming that man made climate change is occurring.

The view of the other side is almost entirely originating from nonscientist lay people, initially by executives of the fossil fuel industry but their view has since been taken up by conservatives who have the primary political goal to support business interests regardless of the final cost to the rest of society. Also a substantial number of the people arguing this side are simply regular folks like all of us who can't afford to pay extra for a tank of gas or to heat their homes, and so they hope with all their might that the view of the climate change deniers will eventually be vindicated. I suspect many of you who regularly post on this forum fit this latter description.

Vince, I respect your right to assume that the scientists of the world are selfish, biased individuals and are primarily driven not by truth but by ambition. However, you need to recognize the significance of this conclusion - that you cannot in good conscience allow yourself to benefit from the fantastic discoveries occurring every day because of the noble work performed in the scientific laboratories of the world.

Just yesterday there was an announcement of a significant breakthrough in molecular biology that could lead to a new approach in the treatment of cancer. Vince, if your child is diagnosed with cancer will you deny your loved one the benefits of science because of your skepticism of the "mainstream" scientific community?

[Vince E]

Did you read the article I linked to Jeff?

I'm not making any assumptions, just reading what some inside the science community who are not afraid to speak the truth are saying about what has happened to the scientific method over the years, especially since govts became the majority administrators of scientific funding and resources. Of course its not all govt. Its the large business interests connected to it as well. You pointed out the oil industry. They are most surely not the only ones working hard at spinning the truth for their own ends.

As far as your cancer argument goes, do you really think they would actually cure it when they could "treat" for it indefinitely? Why would you grant any more trust to the medical industry than you would the oil business?

Like I said, I don't believe any of them.

The good news is we only have to wait 5 or 6 years now to prove that Gore is a big fat liar.

[Greg_Cornish]

Did you read the article Jeff?

Probaby not if it has lewrockwell in the url.

[Vince E]

Yeah, if you want a reliable url go to a .gov, or better yet a .edu

[Jeff C.]

Did you read the article I linked to Jeff?

Actually I did. Thanks for posting the article because it's a great example of how on issues such as this Conservatives must resort to the most out-of-touch fringe elements of the scientific community to make their points. Did you know that the author of the paper, Henry H. Bauer, doubts the reality that HIV causes AIDS? Quite simply, he's a nutcase and his ideas have been rejected soundly by the rest of the scientific community. Is it any wonder he is bitter and distrustful of that same scientific community?

If you truly want an unbiased opinion on how science is done in this country why don't you call up someone who actually is a current member of the scientific community? Here's a link that you can use to get contact information for many of the most respected scientists in their fields: http://www.ucdavis.edu/research/

Or better yet, take a science class at a local university or community college.

[2ndsuks]

If you truly want an unbiased opinion on how science is done in this country why don't you call up someone who actually is a current member of the scientific community? Here's a link that you can use to get contact information for many of the most respected scientists in their fields: http://www.ucdavis.edu/research/

Or better yet, take a science class at a local university or community college.

[swank]

better yet -- put a giant tent over your favorite fishing hole, fly around a few planes continuously, a couple hundred cars, and a coal burning power plants...oh and throw all the waste in the water, and don't forget the farting cows and their poop. then look with your own eyes and see what happens. the only reason smart people don't need to do the full-blown experiment is they can see it happening all around them and are acting accordingly...what sucks is that it's possible to change without a huge cost to anyone...i just don't understand how people on a fishing site would find anyway to argue against cleaning up the earth.

[Vince E]

Jeff, are you deliberately trying to deflect the entire point being made here?

The point is that "respected members" of the "scientific community" are not the godlike and all knowing individuals they would have us believe they are. They are more like schoolyard socialites, advancing their images by how well they can convince the majority of onlookers that they have discredited their opponents.

The actual science involved plays a very minor role in the system of establishing these "experts".
Just like every other aspect of human life. Tell a nugget of truth and surround it with a web of lies that create the picture you want people to see, all while moving your agenda forward. If someone attempts to disagree immediately attack and marginalize his position, before people start to listen to him. Send him away in "disgrace" as a discredited crackpot.

Your position, like so many other arrogant gasbags, is that the only way anyone can learn anything worthy of respect is to have a govt stamp of accreditation on it. That is exactly how they control entry into the market of education but fortunately the age of communication is beginning to change that. The academic system, as it currently exists, is nothing but a screening device used to let employers know that this good worker bee has shown that they can follow orders for a few years. And a means of being able to create "experts" who will publish what they are pressured to and that idiots will accept as deities.

I've taken plenty of govt approved science and math, as have many of the "simpletons" you insult on this board and let me tell you that I've learned a lot more on my own than I did in any school. Education is a way of life, not a 4 year stop on your way to establishing a 401K and a career in the bowels of some corporate machine. You would do well to stop assuming your own superiority as you make judgments about other peoples level of education. You would also do well to stop being so damn gullible.


Swank, I don't know why I'm wasting my time because it is becoming apparent that you are incapable of appreciating what the true cost to everyone will be.

[Jeff C.]

Jeff, are you deliberately trying to deflect the entire point being made here?

So Vince, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

As far as I can tell, your original point was that since the overwhelming majority of the scientists in the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real, they must be dishonest and care more about furthering their own political agenda than the integrity of the discipline that they have dedicated their lives to.

What do you base this conclusion on? Do you provide any firsthand experience to support your premise? No, of course not. What you provide is a link to the bitter ramblings of a discredited fraud who has spent the last few years on the preposterous claim that HIV is not the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

So apparently you have no valid point to make.

[sTony]

Did you know that the author of the paper, Henry H. Bauer, doubts the reality that HIV causes AIDS?

Actually, Henry H. Bauer didn't leave academe in disgrace, but rather retired at age 68 after what most people would regard as a fairly distinguished career.

Here is a link to his website for additional information:

http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/

sTony

[Greg_Cornish]

Do you provide any firsthand experience to support your premise? No, of course not.

Sure he does. He listens to Lew Rockwell his sole source of information who is always correct.

[Jeff C.]

Did you know that the author of the paper, Henry H. Bauer, doubts the reality that HIV causes AIDS?

Actually, Henry H. Bauer didn't leave academe in disgrace, but rather retired at age 68 after what most people would regard as a fairly distinguished career.

sTony

Thanks for the correction. I retract the part about the circumstances of how he left academia. However, I stand by my overall statement that he is a follower of fringe science and his views have been discredited by the rest of the scientific community. As such, his criticisms of the current scientific status-quo are highly suspect in my opinion.

[Greg_Cornish]

Henry H. Bauer

[Vince E]

One more time for the inexhaustibly obtuse:

The point is that "respected members" of the "scientific community" are not the godlike and all knowing individuals they would have us believe they are. They are more like schoolyard socialites, advancing their images by how well they can convince the majority of onlookers that they have discredited their opponents.

[Jeff C.]

Here's a suggested reading list for Vince and the rest of the "Flat Earthers" who like to post here.

And Vince, I think the summary of the last article in the list, written by your hero Dr. Bauer, will be of special interest to you. LOL!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1970 ... inalpos=29

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1956 ... inalpos=40

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1858 ... rom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1961 ... dinalpos=1

[Vince E]

"Flat Earthers"

You did NOT just throw out a string of .gov websites to refute an argument about the legitimacy of govt information systems did you?


You're killing me

Holy S**t I don't believe it! His site rubs the whole issue right in your face!

However, we have received serious expressions of concern about the quality of this article, which contains highly controversial opinions about the causes of AIDS, opinions that could potentially be damaging to global public health.

[Vince E]

just to be sure and record this for posterity before it disappears from the ethos.....

WITHDRAWN: HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS - A new perspective.

Duesberg PH, Nicholson JM, Rasnick D, Fiala C, Bauer HH.

Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Donner Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

This Article-in-Press has been withdrawn pending the results of an investigation. The editorial policy of Medical Hypotheses makes it clear that the journal considers "radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas", and articles will only be acceptable if they are "coherent and clearly expressed." However, we have received serious expressions of concern about the quality of this article, which contains highly controversial opinions about the causes of AIDS, opinions that could potentially be damaging to global public health. Concern has also been expressed that the article contains potentially libelous material. Given these important signals of concern, we judge it correct to investigate the circumstances in which this article came to be published online. When the investigation and review have been completed we will issue a further statement. Until that time, the article has been removed from all Elsevier databases. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

PMID: 19619953 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

You were providing this as evidence for WHOS argument?

Must be a straw man

[Jeff C.]

"Flat Earthers"

You did NOT just throw out a string of .gov websites to refute an argument about the legitimacy of govt information systems did you?


You're killing me

Vince, Vince, didn't you say that you had actually taken college level science classes? If so, surely you learned the concept of a journal citation service? You can rest assured that the index simply lists the article summaries from the actual peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. No big government conspiracy here, just your tax dollars at work. You could even do a search for articles that favor your view, if you really want to. I wouldn't expect many hits to show up, however. Why don't you do us all a service and search something like "global warming conspiracy" and let us know how it turned out. LOL!

[Vince E]

Do me a quick favor and define "my view".

[Jeff C.]

You were providing this as evidence for WHOS argument?

Actually, it strongly favors my argument that the guy is a discredited crackpot. In my nearly 20 years of working in science I have only seen a handful of instances where a journal retracted an article from publication in such a way. In fact, off of the top of my head the only instance I can think of this happening was a case where the author was found to have completely made up his data. So yes, I think it's safe to say your good Dr. Bauer is in some deep ****.

[Vince E]

Well its a shame he isn't working in "climatology" then. He would fit right in.

[angler2020]

It is a Hoax put out by the global elite.

Debunking David De Rothschild And The Global Warming Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN7ioCiSmtc

The family that came up with the global warming hoax owns most of the wealth in the world. Around 500 trillion. Global warming is just a hoax to tax you out of your wealth.

Other planets polar ice caps are melting, too. Guess humans are causing this to happen on other planets also. What a hoax?