<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for How a phony petition attacking global warming science gained a life of its own]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:21:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/1 Great Post!


  David,

     Thanks!  This post is very important because it should remind us of what we're up against.  Which is not science but rather political people who have no desire to fight fair.

     We can expect to see more such efforts.  It's not just the silly petition, but the play it gets in so called "respectable" MSM newspapers like the Wall Street Journal.  Lots of people read this, and assume therefore it must be true.

     In actuality, the WSJ is about on a par with Wikipedia in terms of accuracy. (Smile).

     Seriously, unless we can find ways to defeat this kind of anti-environmental ponzi scheme, we will always be on the defensive.

     It would be useful to see who funds these folks....

patrick
     

]]> Great Post!


  David,

     Thanks!  This post is very important because it should remind us of what we're up against.  Which is not science but rather political people who have no desire to fight fair.

     We can expect to see more such efforts.  It's not just the silly petition, but the play it gets in so called "respectable" MSM newspapers like the Wall Street Journal.  Lots of people read this, and assume therefore it must be true.

     In actuality, the WSJ is about on a par with Wikipedia in terms of accuracy. (Smile).

     Seriously, unless we can find ways to defeat this kind of anti-environmental ponzi scheme, we will always be on the defensive.

     It would be useful to see who funds these folks....

patrick
     

]]> Comment #2 by NedRoscoe http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:53:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/2 Phoney Petitions?

The original purpose of the petition was to show that there is not a consensus on global warming. A consensus is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that the earth will be warmer in the future, that the change in temperature is or will be anthropogenic, or that the force of government should be used to rectify the situation.

One should also look at the "Doctors for Disaster Preparedness" society to see what the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine people and their colleagues discuss in addition to global warming: malaria, hormesis, and the effects of funding upon research.

What if the consensus isn't always right?

]]> Phoney Petitions?

The original purpose of the petition was to show that there is not a consensus on global warming. A consensus is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that the earth will be warmer in the future, that the change in temperature is or will be anthropogenic, or that the force of government should be used to rectify the situation.

One should also look at the "Doctors for Disaster Preparedness" society to see what the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine people and their colleagues discuss in addition to global warming: malaria, hormesis, and the effects of funding upon research.

What if the consensus isn't always right?

]]> Comment #3 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:08:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/3 Nucler war: Not that bad?

http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

Another presentation from the good folk who brought you this petition.  All hail home (father)land security!

Dr Strangelove (Ed Teller) provides the introduction to this tome.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Nucler war: Not that bad?

http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

Another presentation from the good folk who brought you this petition.  All hail home (father)land security!

Dr Strangelove (Ed Teller) provides the introduction to this tome.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:05:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/4 I looked at that petition earlier in the year

I found the same results. A large percentage of the signers were ordinary physicians. I know a number of physicians. They can be as conservative, religious, and overall stupid as anyone else. They don't know anymore about climate change than anyone else.

Always look at the sources for things said on the net, and if a source was not provided, it is best to take whatever was said with a big grain of salt, even if it tends to support what you want to be true. Demand sources.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> I looked at that petition earlier in the year

I found the same results. A large percentage of the signers were ordinary physicians. I know a number of physicians. They can be as conservative, religious, and overall stupid as anyone else. They don't know anymore about climate change than anyone else.

Always look at the sources for things said on the net, and if a source was not provided, it is best to take whatever was said with a big grain of salt, even if it tends to support what you want to be true. Demand sources.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Comment #5 by mihan http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:14:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/5 Consensus

NedRoscoe raises a very good point: what if the consensus is not right? Historically, we know it's not always right (just ask Galileo G.).

However, usually, society goes with the majority: it's as good as we've got. There's no issue on which everyone agrees (thank god). But the way science works is, we go on what most of us agree is true, everyone continues their research, and eventually the random walk of most/all scientists converge somewhere: it may be where the original consesus was, it may be in a totally different place.

It is indisputable that the vast majority of scientists do agree that the climate is changing AND that we're causing a large part of it. The reason that the small number of so-called skeptics doesn't "prove the rule" is political/rhetorical. The basic argument is, "this one person disagrees, so it can't be true." This article does a good (though maybe dry) job of pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments of people who claim that hurricane strength is not linked to global warming; many of the same fallacies are used by the global-warming "skeptics" in general.

]]> Consensus

NedRoscoe raises a very good point: what if the consensus is not right? Historically, we know it's not always right (just ask Galileo G.).

However, usually, society goes with the majority: it's as good as we've got. There's no issue on which everyone agrees (thank god). But the way science works is, we go on what most of us agree is true, everyone continues their research, and eventually the random walk of most/all scientists converge somewhere: it may be where the original consesus was, it may be in a totally different place.

It is indisputable that the vast majority of scientists do agree that the climate is changing AND that we're causing a large part of it. The reason that the small number of so-called skeptics doesn't "prove the rule" is political/rhetorical. The basic argument is, "this one person disagrees, so it can't be true." This article does a good (though maybe dry) job of pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments of people who claim that hurricane strength is not linked to global warming; many of the same fallacies are used by the global-warming "skeptics" in general.

]]> Comment #6 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:28:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/6 If the Consensus is Wrong

   If the consensus is wrong and we have acted to stop global warming, we will have created a society that uses sustainable energy resources in a manner which will have our descendants blessing us instead of cursing us.

   If the consensus is wrong and we have done nothing, Americans will still be consuming resources at at rate which is not sustainable.  (Ummm, sustainable is not just a buzz word, it means that it SERIOUSLY cannot continue.)

   If the consensus is right and we have acted to stop global warming, we will be smuggly congratulating ourselves on getting it "right".

   If the consensus is right and we do nothing, it will be too late, and all those who favor doing nothing now will be whining about how come no one told them how bad it was really going to be.

patrick

]]> If the Consensus is Wrong

   If the consensus is wrong and we have acted to stop global warming, we will have created a society that uses sustainable energy resources in a manner which will have our descendants blessing us instead of cursing us.

   If the consensus is wrong and we have done nothing, Americans will still be consuming resources at at rate which is not sustainable.  (Ummm, sustainable is not just a buzz word, it means that it SERIOUSLY cannot continue.)

   If the consensus is right and we have acted to stop global warming, we will be smuggly congratulating ourselves on getting it "right".

   If the consensus is right and we do nothing, it will be too late, and all those who favor doing nothing now will be whining about how come no one told them how bad it was really going to be.

patrick

]]> Comment #7 by mihan http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/ Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:35:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/of-phony-petitions-and-attacks-on-science/7 forgot to make my point...

which is that we're asking the wrong question. If our question is, "Are we causing the earth to warm up?" we get bogged down because some people think not (though most think so).

Instead we should ask, "Is it right to be spending our grandchildren's inheritance (so to speak)?"

As Patrick points out, acting now to change our economy and lifestyles to be sustainable is a good thing (and answers question #2), and does not depend at all on the answer to the first question.

I suppose you could still point out that there are some who think that the rapture will soon be upon us so the answer to #2 doesn't matter, either. I have no idea what to do with those people.

]]> forgot to make my point...

which is that we're asking the wrong question. If our question is, "Are we causing the earth to warm up?" we get bogged down because some people think not (though most think so).

Instead we should ask, "Is it right to be spending our grandchildren's inheritance (so to speak)?"

As Patrick points out, acting now to change our economy and lifestyles to be sustainable is a good thing (and answers question #2), and does not depend at all on the answer to the first question.

I suppose you could still point out that there are some who think that the rapture will soon be upon us so the answer to #2 doesn't matter, either. I have no idea what to do with those people.

]]>