[luke warm]

hrothgar said:

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that environmentalists are trying to mute their opposition?

here are a few quotes (again) that some might have missed the first time i posted them... while it's true that both sides have agendas, only one (that i've found) admits that it's okay to lie... most of these are pathetic, and show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the ones involved

Quote

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

so having an agenda outweighs honesty? it appears so...

Quote

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

making things bigger than they really are? is that the same as lying?

Quote

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

Quote

"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."

Dr. David L. Lewis
(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)
(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)

those last two make sense to me... i don't know why anyone would object to the concepts

Quote

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs

sheesh... what a dolt

Quote

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

justice? equality? brought about by climate change? so go ahead and lie your ass off, the ends justify the means, especially if the ends are *your* ends

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 17 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

here are a few quotes (again) that some might have missed the first time i posted them... while it's true that both sides have agendas, only one (that i've found) admits that it's okay to lie... most of these are pathetic, and show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the ones involved

Quote

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

so having an agenda outweighs honesty? it appears so...

Just for the record Jimmy, given that you're so concerned with honesty you might want to consider providing a more complete version of Schneider's quote:

Quote

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

One might make the claim that you presented an isolated snippet that was (largely) taken out of context... Hell, I'd go so far as to say that you were that you were misrepresenting Schneider's position in order to try to score a political point.

This doesn't really strike me as particularly honest.

(BTW, I'm completely prepared to believe that you were simply parroting some quote you found on another web site and were too lazy to bother doing a background search. I suppose that "lazy" is probably better than "liar")

[Gerben42]

Let me summarize my opinion:

* There is not enough understanding of climate change.

* The biggest human CO2 producers are not going to decrease their release significantly, thus rendering European and other measures useless.

* Global warming is not going to "end the world". Life will always survive and humanity will survive. There is no evidence that the Earth can reach Venus-like conditions with just 1300 W / m^2 of solar input. Certainly the current human CO2 production won't be enough to trigger it, otherwise it would already have happened.

* Regardless of what the global temperature will be, overpopulation and unequal distribution of the already insufficient basic needs like food and water will be the biggest problems at the end of the century.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 16 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

(BTW, I'm completely prepared to believe that you were simply parroting some quote you found on another web site and were too lazy to bother doing a background search.  I suppose that "lazy" is probably better than "liar")

i've been accused of laziness before, and sometimes it's been warranted... i don't think this is such a time though, but i could be prejudiced (seeing as how it's me i'm talking about)

on the quote you chose to use from my post, how do you take schneider's (contextual) comments? do you not see that his argument is internally inconsistent? on the one hand (as he might put it) he gives lip service to the scientific method... on the other, he wants to offer up scary scenerios in order to get media coverage in order to get broadbased support in order to see a better world (climatically speaking)

but there is a problem with his logic.. the means he chooses (offering up scary scenerios, etc) to reach his end belies the scientific method... the things he wants to accomplish, and the lengths he goes to do so, can only be undertaken (if he wants to be consistent) *after* the scientific method, not before

so it doesn't strike me as particularly honest on your part to accuse me of not being particularlly honest... read it again and tell us all how schneider can actually adhere to the scientific method when he reaches conclusions apart from and ahead of their results.. you're right, there is dishonesty afoot, but it isn't from me... i've only posted a few examples of those who *admit* that lying to obtain their goals is the right thing to do...

i agree with gerben, mankind has plenty of things to work on apart from this tempest in a teapot

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 17 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

on the quote you chose to use from my post, how do you take schneider's (contextual) comments? do you not see that his argument is internally inconsistent? on the one hand (as he might put it) he gives lip service to the scientific method... on the other, he wants to offer up scary scenerios in order to get media coverage in order to get broadbased support in order to see a better world (climatically speaking)

Jimmy:

Are you able to admit that the sections of Schneider's quote that you obmitted change the meaning substantially? If nothing else, do the words

Quote

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

give you pause for thought?

The hypocrisy here is staggering...

You are selectively presenting evidence trying to discredit Schneider. You are using precisely the same tactics that you claim makes Schneider a liar.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 17 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

Jimmy:

Are you able to admit that the sections of Schneider's quote that you obmitted change the meaning substantially?  If nothing else, do the words

Quote

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

give you pause for thought?

i answered them above, i also asked several questions you didn't address... my answer, quoted from above, is "... tell us all how schneider can actually adhere to the scientific method when he reaches conclusions apart from and ahead of their results.."

this quote from schneider, "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." should convince any but the most delusional - he merely *hopes* that being effective and being honest are inclusive, but it isn't *necessary*... and richard, his isn't the only quote i provided... so when you speak of hypocrisy and of agendas, don't leave off the only people who actually admit to having an agenda, and who admit that lying to further that agenda is perfectly acceptable... i find that not to be worthy of anyone, much less of someone enamored of the scientific method

does the other side have an agenda? i would suppose so... do they admit to lying, or admit that lying is okay to further that agenda? i haven't found anyone who does

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 17 2007, 11:05 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 17 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

Jimmy:

Are you able to admit that the sections of Schneider's quote that you obmitted change the meaning substantially?  If nothing else, do the words

Quote

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

give you pause for thought?

i answered them above, i also asked several questions you didn't address... my answer, quoted from above, is "... tell us all how schneider can actually adhere to the scientific method when he reaches conclusions apart from and ahead of their results.."

this quote from schneider, "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." should convince any but the most delusional - he merely *hopes* that being effective and being honest are inclusive, but it isn't *necessary*... and richard, his isn't the only quote i provided... so when you speak of hypocrisy and of agendas, don't leave off the only people who actually admit to having an agenda, and who admit that lying to further that agenda is perfectly acceptable... i find that not to be worthy of anyone, much less of someone enamored of the scientific method

does the other side have an agenda? i would suppose so... do they admit to lying, or admit that lying is okay to further that agenda? i haven't found anyone who does

I think that it is useful to distinquish between two separate and distinct operations:

1. The application of the scientific method

The scientific method is a research technique based on proposing and testing a hypothesis.

2. The presentation of results to an audience of laymen

Take a look at what Schneider is actually saying. He never claims that scientists should compromise their research methodology. This is something that you have invented and are projecting onto his comments.

Schneider does state that scientists who believe in global warming have an incentive to shape their presentations to heighten dramatic effect. (once again, this is precisely what you are doing when you leave out significant portions of Schneider's quote. I find it remarkable that you are attacking for the behaviour that you yourself are practicing)

As for his concluding sentence, when I read his words I think that his construction indicates that he believes that scientists should be honest. He chose an un necessarily complex construction.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 17 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

I think that it is useful to distinquish between two separate and distinct operations:

1.  The application of the scientific method

The scientific method is a research technique based on proposing and testing a hypothesis.

2. The presentation of results to an audience of laymen

Take a look at what Schneider is actually saying.  He never claims that scientists should compromise their research methodology.  This is something that you have invented and are projecting onto his comments.

that is not true, but others can judge for themselves... also, this is where you seem to be missing the point... look again at your #2, and look at my quote from above: "... the means he chooses (offering up scary scenerios, etc) to reach his end belies the scientific method... the things he wants to accomplish, and the lengths he goes to do so, can only be undertaken (if he wants to be consistent) *after* the scientific method, not before..."

so when you speak of him offering up "results" you prove my point... what results? those obtained through the scientific method? i say no, that he's offering scenerios he *wants* to be true, ones he believes to be true, but not ones proven to be true...

in any case, i've provided enough evidence (imho) to support my contention that only one side in this debate has admitted that lying is perfectly acceptable when it accomplishes their aims... others reading these posts are perfectly able to form their own opinions as to these things, as they can compare your arguments vs. mine... even those who might agree that mankind is the root of GW must admit that only one side admits that the truth is not the most important thing

Quote

Schneider does state that scientists who believe in global warming have an incentive to shape their presentations to heighten dramatic effect.  (once again, this is precisely what you are doing when you leave out significant portions of Schneider's quote.  I find it remarkable that you are attacking for the behaviour that you yourself are practicing)

again, others reading can decide for themselves if that's what i'm doing, but i deny it... i have used the full quote you provided, and there is no contextual justification for reading it any differently than i originally interpretted it... he believes a thing to be so and tries to convince others of this belief, in "heightened dramatic" verbiage, apart from and ahead of the full testing of hypothoses... is that true or not? is that what he is doing or not?

[Al_U_Card]

When in doubt I always apply the "Which makes more sense?" metric.

We do something and clean up after ourselves with a minimum of crap left behind.

OR

We are very messy and do nothing to put things back the way they were.

I vote for acting to reduce our CO2 emissions etc. as a matter of principle.