| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Global Warming Politics.; why politically polarizing? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 11:48 PM (798 Views) | |
| Brewster | Feb 20 2012, 06:37 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I Just found an excellent study by Penn State covering the points brought up here in detail - a long read, but well worth it. This is part of the introduction:
Below is the link to the complete study - one note of caution: For some unknown reason, the university has posted the sections in reverse order, that is it starts with 4, then 3, and so on, so you have to scroll down to find the beginning of the series. Irresponsible Skepticism Edited by Brewster, Feb 20 2012, 06:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Feb 20 2012, 06:49 AM Post #22 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good article. Thanks. Coming from Penn State, it must be factual. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 20 2012, 06:55 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"I Just found an excellent study by Penn State covering the points brought up here in detail" Do you mean something that meets your personal approval and agrees with your opinion? It starts off neutrally: "This series is based upon the assumption that skepticism in science is essential to increase understanding of the natural world. Yet, ideologically based disinformation is often ethically abhorrent particularly in regard to behaviors about which there is credible scientific support for the conclusion that these activities threaten life and the ecological systems on which life depend. This report focuses on specific tactics that have been deployed in the climate change disinformation campaign. It is not a critique of responsible skepticism." Then it addresses only the shortcomings of deniers. I can't find an instance of any problems with alarmists. A balanced criticism would be much better than this piece of confirmation bias. Edited by Chris, Feb 20 2012, 06:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Corky52 | Feb 20 2012, 07:00 AM Post #24 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chris, Maybe there is no balance because there are no similar tactics being used by the other side of the argument! Lack of reporting may mean there is nothing to report, not just a bias of the reporting. Using the facts and truth eliminates the need for spin!
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 20 2012, 07:02 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Check the article I posted earlier, examples of both. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 20 2012, 07:05 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If I have a criticism of the article, it is that it bends over TOO HARD to try to maintain "balance". Corky, you're quite accurate. If one is telling the truth, what is the need for "spin"? Edited by Brewster, Feb 20 2012, 07:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Corky52 | Feb 20 2012, 07:17 AM Post #27 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chris, Spin on spin seems to define the sources you use, I DID NOT find much in your sources to believe. Whirligigs, pinwheels and gyroscopes!
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 20 2012, 07:21 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's funny. The main point of the author is asking is, assuming climate change proven, even to be skeptical is ethically irresponsible or ignorant. That's exactly how Brewster addresses any skepticism on the topic. Here is an example of those "eithics": Judith Curry
And here is Brewster's personal attack against her: "Judith Curry ... merely cherry picked..." http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1118448&t=4593903 "Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot...." http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1105464&t=4564006 "She has no "facts and logic" on her side at all." http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1105487&t=4564006 "Curry's mindless nonsense" http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1105496&t=4564006 "Look at his erroneous post #3 written by a known error-prone Denier, Curry" http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1105572&t=4564006 "Deniers like Curry and her obfuscations" http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1105723&t=4564006 "Halton Arp may be a "rogue", but at least he's a "rogue" with good credentials in the field, and actually does research. He may be wrong, he may be right, but at least his work is founded in rational scientific inquiry. In no way analogous to Chris's Judith Curry." http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1109983&t=4564006 "As for Curry, she most definitely did NOT use BEST data, at least not honestly. I have showed repeatedly how she cherry picked a 9 year part of her own slice of the overall data, very much against scientific principles." http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/single/?p=1110060&t=4564006 Curry, btw, is part of the BEST team. Ethical? You've got to be kidding. "bends over TOO HARD to maintain "balance"" Baloney. Edited by Chris, Feb 20 2012, 07:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 20 2012, 07:22 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you for confirming that neither the deniers nor the alarmists were believable. That was my point. Glad you got it. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:17 PM Jul 11
