Rogue Keeper on 12/3/2009 at 13:01
(
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html)
So, the sceptics of anthrophogenic influence on climate changers had their party. Ok, we all like to party sometimes. Scepticism is necessary when it comes to scientific issues, if it can be backed up by legitimate, empirically verifiable data. Group of sceptical environmentalists, climatologists, geologists, meteorologists and economist advisors - who chose Czech president Vaclav Klaus as their opinionated icon - claim that the GW scare isn't based on relevant scientific data and in fact, what is threatened isn't the Earth climate, what is in peril is our FREEDOM (of course people like Klaus mean ECONOMIC FREEDOM, what other freedom can be more important than that ??). They blame abstract green-tinted political streams for spreading the scare for their political gain, they point out at dangerous trend of science being raped by politics and blind environmentalist agendas.
Ok, thanks for alternate opinion in contrast with conclusions of UN's Intergovernmental panel on climate change.
But just look at who organized this theatre! The Heartland Fundation. Established conservative/libertarian (I should better use 'anarchocapitalist', as I personally see nothing Libertarian in the concept of anarchocapitalism, but that's another topic...) tendentional group, who in the past received donations from Exxon Mobil and numerous other private corporations, who employed executives not only from Exxon, but also from General Motors and Philip Morris and who knows where from. This is the same think-tank which has been denying causative link between passive smoking and cancer... There's even some more bizarre shit if you read bios of some (at least allegedly) preeminent scientific figures who have contributed to this conference.
How can scientists (and wannabe scientists) funded by such dubious private capital have some serious credibility? What is their moral right to criticize (very rarely any specific) environmentalist politicians from being corrupted?
I am aware that the scientific discussion needs is PROs and CONs. Even though I'm convinced that climate change is real (I am of course open to arguments what is the level of anthropogenic contribution and what is natural process), I'd love to hear out arguments of the sceptics. But I'm afraid that coruption by industrial lobbists and thus dubious motives of the deniers are disproportionally more obvious and verifiable than corruption of UN IPCC's members or any random unnamed "environmentalist politician."
As I see it, the corruption of science not only by political ideologies, but more so by PRIVATE CAPITAL is the real threat to our freedom and reasonable future.
Discuss.
Briareos H on 12/3/2009 at 13:35
Discuss the obvious.
(again)
Gussss on 12/3/2009 at 13:44
You are not free & you have no future.
Rogue Keeper on 12/3/2009 at 13:49
But what is obvious, climate change or corruption of science? And if the corruption of science is obvious, is it natural in our society, is it necessary evil, consequences of which we'll have to suffer forever? Interests of commercial sector biasing science greatly exceed the framework of climate change debate...
Pitch on 12/3/2009 at 14:02
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
And if the corruption of science is obvious, is it natural in our society, is it necessary evil, consequences of which we'll have to suffer forever?
Hint: scientists are human.
Rogue Keeper on 12/3/2009 at 14:04
You helped me greatly, I was afraid you would propose some laws or regulations! :)
Starrfall on 12/3/2009 at 14:08
Economic freedom obviously means that big corps should get all the freedom and everyone else should pay all of the costs.
Volitions Advocate on 12/3/2009 at 14:28
I don't have the data. I haven't sought it out for awhile. But honestly I dont side with the environmentals on this issue.
I know that a lot of data they present, while accurate can be skewed in their favor. Things like temperature over time graphs or sea level over time.
The fact is that temperatures and sea levels fluctuate naturally, and when they do things like show all the data from 1960 - 2000 the average shows it rising, but if they used 1900 - 2000 it would show an overall falling trend. Same with temperatures and certain cities.
Other things like how people are freaking out about glaciers melting from the antarctic peninsula and the arctic, but they dont mention that Antarctica itself is getting colder and thicker.
Also. Companies like Exxon and Shell send a shite load of funding to these environmental groups and probably spend more on research into this topic than anybody else does, but everybody talks about how they fund the research that says there's no problem, not commenting on the fact that the people who rail their accusations of conspiracy are also getting funding from the same source. Were it not for these big corporations most of these NGO's wouldn't have the funding to exist.
What they don't seem to want to admit is that the Earth is dynamic. Climate Change **IS** real. its been happening since long before the industrial revolution. We're currenly occupying the earth during an interglacial, climate changes, And it's really easy to divert peoples attention to the current *Weather* and away from true *climate trends*. Its true that the last decade or so has had the mildest winters i've ever experienced. I also know that the last 3 years up here have been the coldest and harshest I have ever experienced. If the globe is warming so badly why Have I been in -50C weather when normally it goes to around -25 in the winter.
I really do believe most environmental groups use fear-mongering as tactics, and usually rely on emotion while showing only the bits of truth that help them look good.
I want to clarify though. I do not believe in a significant human related problem in the effects of global warming. This does not mean I don't believe in things like green energy and pollution reduction. There are some thigns that oil companies are doing that are horribly destructive to the environment. I'm right in the thick of it, I"m from Alberta, and the entire world right now is looking at us saying we're the ones raping the earth.
I dont have any affiliation with any NGO or energy sector company. I'm a student.
Things need to be changed. I agree. But I don't believe fear mongering is the way to do it.
Also. lost of these environmentalists that support the climate change belief, are funded by celebrities and other conciously minded rich people....
People who preach controlling consumption and living a less complicated life... who still fly first class instead of coach. Use limosines instead of hybrid cars, and live in a house with 2 or 3 people that are 7 -8 -10 thousand square feet of living space, and use natural gas to heat that house.
The hypocrisy is everywhere.
Obviously im kind of passionate about this subject, but I have class right now so i have to go. I'll find the data to back up my claims. I've found it all before I'll just have to do some research, I'll post it when i have the time.
Stitch on 12/3/2009 at 14:38
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
I am aware that the scientific discussion needs is PROs and CONs. Even though I'm convinced that climate change is real (I am of course open to arguments what is the level of anthropogenic contribution and what is natural process), I'd love to hear out arguments of the sceptics.
Considering that the scientific community regards the stance against human affected global warming as somewhere between flat earth and resurrecting dinosaurs with sap-trapped mosquitoes, what makes you think the skeptics have anything worthwhile to contribute?
Rogue Keeper on 12/3/2009 at 16:36
Ok VA, I already have few questions on my mind, but I'll wait until you bring the data.
