Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Global Warming Politics.; why politically polarizing?
Topic Started: Feb 19 2012, 11:48 PM (798 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
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:

Quote:
 
Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign:

By DONALD A BROWN on January 3, 2012 3:03 PM| 6 Comments| 0 TrackBacks

I. Introduction to The Series:

Over the next few weeks, ClimateEthics will take a deeper look at what has been referred to as the "climate change disinformation campaign" through an ethical lens

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.

Although ClimateEthics has examined these issues briefly before, see: An Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign: Is This A New Kind of Assault on Humanity?, this is the first in a series of posts that will examine this phenomenon in depth.

The climate disinformation campaign can be understood as a movement of organizations and individuals that can be counted on to systematically attack mainstream climate change science in ways that radically depart from responsible scientific skepticism. In the next entry in this series we will look more closely at what we mean by a "campaign" or "movement."

Later entries in this series will look in more detail at specific tactics used by the disinformation movement. Because skepticism in science should be encouraged rather than vilified, the last entry in this series will make recommendations about norms that should guide responsible skepticism in climate science.


The tactics that will be examined in this series include:

- Lying Or Reckless Disregard For the Truth
- Focusing On Unknowns While Ignoring The Knowns.
- Specious Claims Of "Bad" Science
- Creation of Front Groups
- Manufacturing Bogus Climate Science
- Think Tank Campaigns
- Misleading PR Campaigns.
- Creation of Astroturf Groups
- Cyber-bullying Scientists and Journalists

The series will demonstrate that the controversy over climate change science that has unfolded in the last twenty years is a strong example of the urgent need to create new societal norms about how to deal with scientific uncertainty for human problems about which there is a justifiable scientific basis for great concern about potential impacts but uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of these impacts.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Good article. Thanks. Coming from Penn State, it must be factual.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corky52
Member Avatar
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! :teeth:

:smoker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Check the article I posted earlier, examples of both.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corky52
Member Avatar
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!


:smoker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Feb 20 2012, 07:05 AM
If I have a criticism of the article, it is that it bends over TOO HARD to maintain "balance".

Corky, you're quite accurate. If one is telling the truth, what is the need for "spin"?
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
Quote:
 
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

...Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her PhD degree in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.

...Curry is a professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.[3] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advise and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy.[4] She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group [3][5] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[3][6]

Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3][6] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[7][8] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[9]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[10] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[11] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[4] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992....


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Corky52
Feb 20 2012, 07:17 AM
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!


:smoker:
Thank you for confirming that neither the deniers nor the alarmists were believable. That was my point. Glad you got it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis