 |
Global Warming? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 456 |
| Author | ||||||
Peter Parker 
Member 
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 22 July 2009 at 12:48pm |
|||||
First off, let's not get too carried away with the conspiracy theories here. The paper (at least as hosted by CEI) is not finished. We don't know what processes go on - I am not aware of whether the NCEE normally would comment on this type of regulation or not. "Help help I'm being oppressed" is a common reaction from butthurt narcissists.
And as for transparency - how many other internal EPA reports and comment memos have you seen? How about DOE reports/memos? ICE? DEA? They are called "internal" for a reason. Not that they are necessarily secret, but they aren't really meant for general publication. It is hardly a slam on transparency that this report was not brought to the public eye.
Or it means they are being silenced... As my article that I posted clearly points out. As well as my other links that I posted, also pointing out the "blacklisting" of anyone who speaks out against the "global warming religion/ideology". Yes, I know: "Help help, they are being oppressed." The scientists that know the TRUTH about global warming are being silenced, right along with the scientists that know the TRUTH about evolution, right?
Two thoughts here: 1. If they are being silenced, it is the worst silencing of all time. Warming skeptics get FAR more press coverage than supporters. The press loves a contrarian, and they get published. Want to sell books? Write about sunspots, not about CO2.
And 2. This silencing theory goes against everything I know of the scientific community. Research scientists are not physicians. Physicians all love to get along - research scientists LOVE to prove each other wrong. Proving the other guy wrong gets you published, and gets you an academic prize and an endowed chair. Supporting the status quo gets you a temp teaching job at Southern State U. Put a bunch of research scientists in a room together and they will start yelling at each other almost immediately. Ask a researcher what his dream is, and he will tell you that it is to discover something new, to upset the status quo. That's the whole point of research. Nobody becomes a researcher just to confirm the work of others.
When they all don’t actually agree… http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537 Actually, when I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth (I held off for a long time, as I assumed it would be annoying propaganda), I immediately took to the web to look up stuff I had taken notes on.
I researched his claims as best I could, and checked his sources. And that movie, while not perfect, is far more accurate and legitimate than anything CEI has ever come up with.
I am also pretty sure that Gore never described 2,500 scientists as having signed off on "his" findings. Gore is not a scientist and does not pretend to be.
As to "consensus." Important semantic distinction here. I am NOT suggesting, nor should anybody suggest, that every contributor to the IPCC reports agree 100% with everything in those reports. That would be silly. A scientific "consensus" does not mean "everybody agrees completely." There are always dissenters, on issues big and small. A consensus instead means that there is a prevailing view on a particular point, agreed by most - perhaps even almost all - to be the best-proven theory.
And on that basis I will in fact claim that there is a scientific consensus that (a) global warming is occurring, and (b) it is almost certainly caused primarily by human action, by way of increased net CO2 emissions.
Once you step beyond those two points the consensus weakens (as to big points - the consensus will strengthen on a myriad of detail points, of course). There is significant disagreement about the role of global warming in hurricane formation, for instance, and I think the IPCC reports overstated that position. And all projections for future change are heavily discussed as well.
I will agree that Gore's movie devolved into a bit of hyperbole at points, and elevated some points to "consensus" that probably did not deserve that label, but those were mostly minor issues (like polar bears). On the big issues, the central causalities, he was pretty much in complete accord with the scientific consensus.
Similarly, when I read the IPCC reports, I researched most of the lead writers and read a variety of articles on the main subject areas.
So yes, I do apply the same level of scrutiny to "my" side as to opposing views.
Really? What are these "government sciences?" Because the IPCC reports are nothing more than a compilation and evaluation of the sum of research on the subject. And that underlying research was conducted by thousands of different scientists over the course of decades/centuries, on every continent, with both private and public funds.
That's one heck of a conspiracy.
And which "government" exactly is this of which you speak, and why exactly would this "government" want to find for global warming?
I'll be happy to follow the money, but you are going to have to be a lot more specific than "Tha Man."
Sorry for superlong post, guys... not done yet.
NOW - back to the "suppressed report." I read it. And you know what? If I had written it I would want it suppressed too. It is basically a random collection of old denier charts and graphs, poorly copied into a "report" with no rhyme or reason. There is NOTHING NEW in that report that the EPA hasn't heard a thousand times, and big chunks the stuff was copypasta from nutball websites. Heck, he even cites Fred Singer, he cites blog postings, and he cites Ken Gregory.
Not one original thought, not one new piece of data, not one piece of useful anything. It was a total piece of crap.
Edited by Peter Parker - 22 July 2009 at 12:49pm |
||||||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member 
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:08pm |
|||||
Interesting...
|
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
FreeEnterprise
Platinum Member
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 July 2009 at 1:27pm |
|||||
|
in case you were wondering, peter is currently out looking to find a way to discredit this blogger as his findings shed light on this discussion...
If he can't find anything, he will go after me again, or just call everyone who disagrees with him, ignorant, uneducated and dumb...
|
||||||
|
They tremble at my name...
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Peter Parker
Member
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 July 2009 at 4:04pm |
|||||
Nope. Just otherwise occupied. Work does interfere on occasion...
And I am pretty sure I don't frequently call people ignorant, uneducated, or dumb - certainly not for disagreeing with me.
I call arguments dumb on a regular basis, and I lambast people for intentional ignorance, but beyond that? Not so much. I am sure one has slipped out here or there, but it certainly isn't a pattern. If I am wrong in this, please correct me. I don't want to be unknowingly engaged in unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
|
||||||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||||||
|
||||||
Topic Options
FreeEnterprise wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 456 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.