CDZ Climate Denial or Climate Dishonesty?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Jun 23, 2017.

  1. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,068
    Thanks Received:
    1,514
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,197
    "Whoever has the power in society determines what can be studied, determines what can be observed, determines what can be thought. Scientists fall in line with the dominant power structure. They have to, because the power structure pays the bills. You don't play ball with the power structure, you don't get money for research, you don't get an appointment, you don't get published, in short you don't count anymore. You're out. You might as well be dead." -Michael Crichton, Micro (2011)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,861
    Thanks Received:
    12,563
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,515
    And his opinion, which I completely agree with, clearly illustrates what is wrong with the whole AGW schtick.

    An honorable government would not assign research money in order to support a particular point of view and therefore increase government power and/or the fortunes of those in government or who work at the pleasure of the government.

    An honorable government would assign research money to get honest research and honest opinion/conclusions so it would knew when to act, how to act, or whether to act.
     
  3. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,006
    Thanks Received:
    2,358
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,492
    While I can feel your sentiment here you might as well say that honest research does not exist. All research requires resource and the larger the project or topic the greater the resource required.
     
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,861
    Thanks Received:
    12,563
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,515
    I disagree that honest research does not exist. I have participated in it enough to know. I have no problem with scientific organizations receiving grants to do it. But I have a HUGE problem with those grants only being issued to those whose research results in a prespecified conclusion.

    I have also been witness to what I believed to be totally bogus research so I also knows that happens.
     
  5. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,848
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,690
    It's hard sometimes to know the honest research from the rest. Some have the reputation for integrity that you don't want to jeopardize, but may require a check for the other side of the story. And then we have to determine who's more accurate or truthful.
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,861
    Thanks Received:
    12,563
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,515
    Very true. But when you see the inconsistencies between the IPCC report the the Summary for Policymakers that is developed from it, you begin to see a consistent agenda emerge.

    When you hear testimony again and again and again that ONLY those whose research supports the AGW 'consensus' can expect to receive research or study grants from the government or any agency promoting AGW, you have to believe that the science is likely to be tainted.

    When you see climate 'scientists' and/or their advocates living lifestyles that are not at all 'green' or 'responsible to reduce carbon footprints' it is easy to conclude that those 'scientists' are not all that concerned about it.

    And when you see reports that are not denied that this or that group has altered or omitted data so that it conforms with the AGW consensus, or they just move the goal posts on down the line when their models prove to consistently be wrong, you know it is a pretty safe bet that the science is tainted if not downright bogus.

    And when you see that more and more government regulation has had little or no impact on where or how much global warming is occurring, you begin to strongly suspect that none of this is all that much about climate change and is much more about government control and a one-world-order ultimate goal.

    Acknowledging all that does not make me a denier as I'm not because I don't KNOW. But when something smells that bad, it sure makes me a healthy skeptic and not all that willing to swallow what they want to feed us as the gospel truth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  7. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,848
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,690
    The thing that really bothers me is the attempts by the Left to intimidate anyone with an opposing view or even a view that is neutral if it comes from someone within the scientific circle. Threats of disassociation or being ostracized, refusal to publish, lack of funding or tenure, and in some cases unemployment if you aren't part of the AGW alarmist group. That isn't what I'd call settled science.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,861
    Thanks Received:
    12,563
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,515
    100% correctamundo. :)
     
  9. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,291
    Thanks Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +588
    Our positions are probably pretty close. If anyone in Chad can figure out how to lay a railroad and feed a coal plant more power to them. If we can feed them some technology so the plant is somewhat more efficient all the better. It helps their people down wind as well as ours.

    In some ways renewables seem easier to set up.

    My neighbor has a detached garage 20 feet from his house. Instead of getting it wired right to support a trickle charger he bought a solar powered one about a decade ago. I guess if we didn't have building codes wiring it would be something even I can do...not sure you all want that in a real neighborhood though because the people worse than me would be wiring things.

    The same holds true in the third world. If I we moved in together into a city with no real electricity it would be easier to import some solar panels and set up a windmill and see if we could power a fridge and recharge our satellite phones.

    To power a whole city I wonder. You would think economy of scale would favor the coal plant. They are cheap and steady.

    Google fails me. What cities have had this kind of electrical service improvements since Y2K?
     
  10. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,291
    Thanks Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +588
    Perhaps if we can get rid of the rhetoric of the yellers on both sides we can find agreement.

    Pretty much I don't mind holding the U.S. to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I don't want my city's air to become as dirty as Beijing's just to lower my electric bills. From history I firmly believe it would if we remove regulations.

    Also, we can afford it. If anyone in Chad can build a Coal power plant and the infrastructure needed to support it, bless them! If the Paris accords or my own accords provide a tax break to U.S. companies who sell at cost or give them equipment which met our standards of 30 years ago, great.

    Cheaply selling or giving away even our obsolete technology will make 3rd world countries more capable of competing first with manufacturing then militarily but if we don't, eventually the Chinese or the French will and I'd like to think we would get some return on the good will.
     

Share This Page