Climate of Denial

[konradv]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

 

[skookerasbil]

Rolling Stone Magazine..........LMAO......read religiously by the far left for decades!!!

You want the k00k left slant on climate change? You read ANYTHING from Rolling Stone

 

[konradv]

Rolling Stone Magazine..........LMAO......read religiously by the far left for decades!!!

You want the k00k left slant on climate change? You read ANYTHING from Rolling Stone

How would you know it's a "kook" slant? You haven't had time to read it. Typical right wing knee-jerk reaction. How do you even know they aren't bashing the "warmers"? BTW, isn't the "kook" slant your bread and butter?!?!

 

[Si modo]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

And Al Gore is patient zero for this disease on science.

 

[IanC]

the warmers dont think it is fair to criticise the AGW movement for the stupid things Al Gore says, yet they keep putting him in the spotlight.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rolling Stone Magazine..........LMAO......read religiously by the far left for decades!!!

You want the k00k left slant on climate change? You read ANYTHING from Rolling Stone

How would you know it's a "kook" slant? You haven't had time to read it. Typical right wing knee-jerk reaction. How do you even know they aren't bashing the "warmers"? BTW, isn't the "kook" slant your bread and butter?!?!

 

[Big Black Dog]

I've been to de Nile. It was hot and muggy.

 

[skookerasbil]

I've been to de Nile. It was hot and muggy.

And Im here in New York.........its almost July and we've been freezing our nuts off. Most years, we'd already have had a couple of weekends on the Atlantic. So far this year? None................

Was somebody talking about an ice age?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry konrad:: TRIED to read it.. Got to about paragraph four...

Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

Partisian SHIT.. That's what this is.. pure and simple.. I ain't EITHER a poisonous polluter or a right-wing Ideologue and I'm offended by the inference that I am one...

 

[westwall]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

Konny, remember how you claimed that CLIMATEGATE is a hoax and no one believes it? You remember that? How do you explain then that Gore is not on the cover and the story was waaaaayyyyy in the back? Hmmm? I'll tell you why, no one cares about Gore and Co. anymore.....no one.

The reason? You guessed it...CLIMATEGATE!

 

[wirebender]

How would you know it's a "kook" slant?

It is written by the king of the kooks. If algore wrote it it is the kook message. He is so discredited that I am surprised that rolling stone would get anywhere close to him. I guess the fact that they are printing algore's message speaks to how very low they have sunk.

Maybe they are trying parody and are shooting for a Mad Magazine image.

 

[editec]

What astounds me is that we can't even agree on the facts regarding what is going on on the ground.

Forget causation science can't even agree on what is actually happening, let along what is causing it.

 

[konradv]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

Konny, remember how you claimed that CLIMATEGATE is a hoax and no one believes it? You remember that? How do you explain then that Gore is not on the cover and the story was waaaaayyyyy in the back? Hmmm? I'll tell you why, no one cares about Gore and Co. anymore.....no one.

The reason? You guessed it...CLIMATEGATE!

You'd have to ask Rolling Stone about the placement of their stories. It's irrelevant, anyway, except to point out how you'd rather discuss ancillary subjects hoping we'll ignore the fact that the skeptics/deniers are politically rather than scientifically oriented. Make Gore the issue and you've basically proved it.

 

[konradv]

How would you know it's a "kook" slant?

It is written by the king of the kooks. If algore wrote it it is the kook message. He is so discredited that I am surprised that rolling stone would get anywhere close to him. I guess the fact that they are printing algore's message speaks to how very low they have sunk.

Maybe they are trying parody and are shooting for a Mad Magazine image.

Just proved that you don't have a clue about the topic. Those that know it, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore.

 

[westwall]

What astounds me is that we can't even agree on the facts regarding what is going on on the ground.

Forget causation science can't even agree on what is actually happening, let along what is causing it.

If the warmists hadn't resorted to falsification of the data on the ground we would be so much further along. They chose activism over science and this is the result.

 

[westwall]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

Konny, remember how you claimed that CLIMATEGATE is a hoax and no one believes it? You remember that? How do you explain then that Gore is not on the cover and the story was waaaaayyyyy in the back? Hmmm? I'll tell you why, no one cares about Gore and Co. anymore.....no one.

The reason? You guessed it...CLIMATEGATE!

You'd have to ask Rolling Stone about the placement of their stories. It's irrelevant, anyway, except to point out how you'd rather discuss ancillary subjects hoping we'll ignore the fact that the skeptics/deniers are politically rather than scientifically oriented. Make Gore the issue and you've basically proved it.

As usual you can't figure out the relevent issue. Pre CLIMATEGATE the story would have been the lead and Gore would have been on the cover...and you know it. CLIMATEGATE changed all of that. Prior to the revelations only serious students of the issue had a handle on the bad science. After the leak (and leak it was, the emails weren't stolen) the whole world knew that the science was being cooked. The AGW movement has been in collaps since then.

Only a religious fanatic would believe otherwise.

 

[Si modo]

Create a disaster then capitalize on it. That is exactly what is going on. The science does not support any disaster, though. So the dilittantes take over and try to 'speak' science, yet their roles as imposters are readily recognized by those who know science (and have no investment in the 'disaster').

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

Konny....did you read the article you posted????

If so, doesn't this thread belong in 'Humor'?

From your link: "... to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."

This, after the East Anglia email scandal?????

"... respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."?????

OK...I'l stop giggling...

...here is a real article on politization of science:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?

Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com

 

[Si modo]

....

If you believe that the disregard of science is a threat to the future security of the United States and the international community, then please sign our petition below to show your support!

By signing the petition below you also pledge to spend five minutes talking about this issue with a friend or a stranger. Only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!

....

And the petition:

End the War on Science

Greetings,

We, the undersigned, believe public policy decisions are best made under the guidance of scientific inquiry and factual reason, not politics.

We petition the international community to end the politicization of science, by taking the following actions:

• Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
• Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
• Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
• Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
• Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.

To further show our passion for this cause, we pledge to spend five minutes today discussing this issue with a friend or a stranger. It is our belief that it is only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!

[Your name]​

[Emphasis added]

FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS

What a damn good idea.

But, they are just a federation of scientists, not journalists who write about pop music. How fucking dare they!!!!!

 

[westwall]

Good article on how science gets politicized.

Climate of Denial | Rolling Stone Politics

Konny....did you read the article you posted????

If so, doesn't this thread belong in 'Humor'?

From your link: "... to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."

This, after the East Anglia email scandal?????

"... respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists."?????

OK...I'l stop giggling...

...here is a real article on politization of science:

Need a look at how the rabid modern liberals can pollute and corrupt every sphere of endeavor? Obviously it is easier to politicize fields like law or history, but even science?

Here, from the New York Times is a cautionary tale, and an illustration of the method of intimidation…and, yes, it even works on scientists.

It seems that some paleontologists doubted the “widely publicized scientific theories of recent years holds that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago by the impact of a large meteorite.”

“[At] the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists this month in Rapid City, S.D., asserted in interviews, moreover, that the impact theory has had pernicious effects on science and scientists. They charged that controversy over the impact theory has so polarized scientific thought that publication of research reports has sometimes been blocked by personal bias.”

Any of this begin to sound familiar?
“According to a few paleontologists, dissenters from the meteorite theory have faced obstacles in their careers and are sometimes even privately branded as militarists, on the supposed ground that anyone who questions the catastrophic theory of dinosaur extinction also questions the theory that a lethal ''nuclear winter'' similar to the climatic effect of a meteorite impact would follow a nuclear war. The nuclear winter prediction is a major talking point of the movement for nuclear disarmament, and debate over the accuracy of the prediction has become political as well as scientific.”

Does ‘dissenters’ sound a bit like ‘deniers’?

Could it be, a liberal political perspective influencing the imposition of a theory?
So, if one doesn’t toe the party line, their careers are in jeopardy?
Sort of like not getting grants?
And they are called names? Like ‘militarists’? Militarists?

Read the article @ DINOSAUR EXPERTS RESIST METEOR EXTINCTION IDEA - NYTimes.com

Resistance to the Alvarez theory goes back to the date of its first publication as well. We know for example that the dinosaurs didn't vanish overnight, in some cases it took 5 or more million years for the particular species to go extinct. My colleagues and i spent many a night arguing the merits and demerits of the theory.