Former Surgeon General Complains of Censure, Manipulation

[BigSqwert]

I wish I didn't have so much to do - because I'd seriously put together research that dismisses the notion of HUMAN CAUSED global warming. (there's a key phrase there).

Why don't you sit in the garage with your car running for a few hours and tell me that it isn't bad for you.

 

Multiply those emissions by billions and you get our current atmosphere. It's just common sense that we are destroying our atmosphere and that they are HUMAN CAUSED. Think with your brain for crying out loud.

[kapkomet]

No Kap, you can't. That's not science. Yes, scientists sometimes introduce bias when they desire a certain outcome. But in reading your graf here, if what you say is true, then all science is pointless (your quote: you can pull anything out of your ass). Which of course goes right back to what I said earlier - if you dismiss science en masse like that, then some people will feel better, because they can choose to believe whatever they want, regardless of facts or evidence. At that point, we cease to be a thinking society, and revert back to believing the earth is flat.

 

You can choose to live in denial, or you can choose to accept when things sometimes aren't what you want them to be (and maybe even change them). I'd rather accept this reality and try to adapt to it or change it, then spend my energy trying really hard to pretend it isn't true.

ok, I hear you... so maybe I'm not saying what I'm trying to say right.

 

Hypothesis: something that can be either proved or disproved from "scientific" study. Right?

 

Why don't you sit in the garage with your car running for a few hours and tell me that it isn't bad for you.

 

Multiply those emissions by billions and you get our current atmosphere. It's just common sense that we are destroying our atmosphere and that they are HUMAN CAUSED. Think with your brain for crying out loud.

You control the environment in a small space. For example, the A/C you run in your townhouse right now. The earth adapts to changes on a grand scale that humanity cannot control.

[Soxy]

I don't care what Soxy says, most "scientists" tend to be more "liberal" in their thinking, and align themselves with "Democrat" principles in this country. The European scientists, well, they are going to have the "social" slant anyway. It's just the way it is. I use these terms "loosely" to describe political persuasion, not to "insult" a way of thinking.

Again, tell me how you know so much about the scientific process--how things get funded and how things get published. Because I don't think you know enough to be spouting such outrageous accusations of gross scientific mis-conduct.

 

Even the biggest assholes in my field (I've met them and can verify their assholity) will publish a paper to critique their own theory and contradict what they believe. Why? Because ultimately it is the criticisms of science that drive it forward. Creating a completely unified data set that all point to one thing would drive a researcher out of business, so there's absolutely no reason to do.

[BigSqwert]

The earth adapts to changes on a grand scale that humanity cannot control.

So how does the Earth adapt to all the HUMAN caused wastes dumped into rivers in lakes since the start of the Industrial Revolutions, things that ares still being done in countries like China and India? How does the Earth adapt to HUMAN caused catastrophes like oil spills? How does the Earth adapt to highly industrialized areas where acid rain falls?

Edited July 13, 2007 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

Again, tell me how you know so much about the scientific process--how things get funded and how things get published. Because I don't think you know enough to be spouting such outrageous accusations of gross scientific mis-conduct.

 

Even the biggest assholes in my field (I've met them and can verify their assholity) will publish a paper to critique their own theory and contradict what they believe. Why? Because ultimately it is the criticisms of science that drive it forward. Creating a completely unified data set that all point to one thing would drive a researcher out of business, so there's absolutely no reason to do.

Well, for starters, it's the governments of these said countries that control the purse strings. I probably don't need to expand on that.

 

The last part, though, probably makes sense.

 

Assholity?

 

 

That's a new one.

 

 

So how does the Earth adapt to all the HUMAN caused wastes dumped into rivers in lakes since the start of the Industrial Revolutions, things that ares still being done in countries like China and India? How does the Earth adapt to HUMAN caused catastrophes like oil spills? How does the Earth adapt to highly industrialized areas where acid rain falls?

It's still localized - yet - it's not GLOBAL WARMING. Humans cause messes, and humans can clean up. But what about something not tangible?

 

Everything you listed is tangible.

[BigSqwert]

The earth adapts to changes on a grand scale that humanity cannot control.

Please provide me with proof of this with regards to CO2 emissions. What has the Earth done to adapt to the trillions of tons of CO2 emissions we dump into the atmosphere.

 

You know I thought the GOP was the party of family values. I care about my daughter and the children she will have one day. I want them to have clean air and water. I want them to have good health. The GOP could care less about these issues.

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, yes, the earth adapts. That's what it does. And Kap is right in saying we can't CONTROL it. What we can do, like whey any other system (particularly a living one), is minimize our impact on it. By doing so, we minimize the counteractions that system takes to balance the equation. This is important because some of those counteractions will harm us, since we're really just little gnats in this system.

 

Its really pretty simple, and its analagous to the Golden Rule - do unto others. Except in this case the others is REALLY big and strong, and you really don't want to piss it off.

[sox4lifeinPA]

 

I was bored...and I like puns.

[NorthSideSox72]

 

I was bored...and I like puns.

Awesome. The Sturgeon General.

[Jenksismyhero]

I am just amazed that people can still think that, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence otherwise, which you even mention earlier in the same post.

 

You know what? I have seen much more believable evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, than I have for the idea that global warming is not at least partially related to human activity. Up until now though, of course, I didn't believe either of those things because both sets of evidence are laughably weak. But, maybe I'll take the current conservative way of thinking - pick the reality of a situation that I wish were true, believe it is, and then dismiss any sort of logic or science in favor of gut feelings, god's will or some talking head on the radio/TV to back up my point of view.

 

9/11 was a conspiracy - my cat told me so.

 

 

There's a difference between not believing science and ignoring science. I don't ignore the fact that the Earth has hire C02 levels, lower levels of natural resources, and, depending on the time frame you're given, higher than normal temperatures. I do, however, question whether we caused that (temp change) or more precisely, how much of it we caused, and the effect that it will have on the world. Because these are all unknown and unquantifiable facts, and especially the effect part, which is a random ass guessing game of the future, you can't sit here and tell me that people questioning them are ignorant and choosing not to believe what's in front of their faces.

 

For the last two years since Katrina we were lead to believe by the overwhelming majority of scientists that global warming will cause not only an increase in hurricanes (or forces that cause them) but also an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. They forecasted the biggest number of hurricanes on record for each of the last two years. They used every piece of available data, every scientific model/program/whathaveyou, and spit out this grand theory that we were going to get pummeled by storm after storm. And you know what happened? Jack diddly f*ckin squat. For two years hurricanes have been a non-story.

 

No Kap, you can't. That's not science. Yes, scientists sometimes introduce bias when they desire a certain outcome. But in reading your graf here, if what you say is true, then all science is pointless (your quote: you can pull anything out of your ass). Which of course goes right back to what I said earlier - if you dismiss science en masse like that, then some people will feel better, because they can choose to believe whatever they want, regardless of facts or evidence. At that point, we cease to be a thinking society, and revert back to believing the earth is flat.

 

I say bs. I say learn to get out of the pompous attitude that science is ALWAYS right and learn to be a little more open minded, ESPECIALLY when you try to project what will happen in the future. I find it hilarious that people are ok with Gore spouting about the end times because of global warming. How many billions have gone into the research of meteorology? How many meteorologists are working right now? They can't get a f*cking forecast correct 24 hours from now. And you want me to believe some government report about the end times in 10 years based on temperature levels from 1750?

 

And my point about liberals creating global warming was meant more to convey that liberals politicized it. They took it out of science and threw it on cable tv news so people would think about an issue, get scared about it, and then equate liberals as their saviors to this impending disaster.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I always laugh when people equate meteorology with climitology. Predicting daily local temperature fluctuations is much different than studying the earth's overall climate and atmospheric makeup.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's a difference between not believing science and ignoring science. I don't ignore the fact that the Earth has hire C02 levels, lower levels of natural resources, and, depending on the time frame you're given, higher than normal temperatures. I do, however, question whether we caused that (temp change) or more precisely, how much of it we caused, and the effect that it will have on the world. Because these are all unknown and unquantifiable facts, and especially the effect part, which is a random ass guessing game of the future, you can't sit here and tell me that people questioning them are ignorant and choosing not to believe what's in front of their faces.

 

Questioning it is good, it should be done. But that is far different than taking a stance, having no evidence to back it up, censoring the other viewpoint from public view whenever possible, etc. Better instead to find evidence otherwise, or try to find other causes or reasons. I am in agreement with these statements, up until the one in bold, where you take the same tack that Kap did - you dismiss science as random ass guessing, which isn't true at all. The random ass guessing is what the people here who are in denial about it are doing - guessing with no evidence.

 

For the last two years since Katrina we were lead to believe by the overwhelming majority of scientists that global warming will cause not only an increase in hurricanes (or forces that cause them) but also an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. They forecasted the biggest number of hurricanes on record for each of the last two years. They used every piece of available data, every scientific model/program/whathaveyou, and spit out this grand theory that we were going to get pummeled by storm after storm. And you know what happened? Jack diddly f*ckin squat. For two years hurricanes have been a non-story.

 

Um... non-story? They said 2005 would be awful, and guess what? It was! It was the worst year ever. And in 2006 the predictions of the hurricane center were right on, and it was an average-ish year. Where on earth are you getting data that says nothing happened?

 

I say bs. I say learn to get out of the pompous attitude that science is ALWAYS right and learn to be a little more open minded, ESPECIALLY when you try to project what will happen in the future. I find it hilarious that people are ok with Gore spouting about the end times because of global warming. How many billions have gone into the research of meteorology? How many meteorologists are working right now? They can't get a f*cking forecast correct 24 hours from now. And you want me to believe some government report about the end times in 10 years based on temperature levels from 1750?

 

And my point about liberals creating global warming was meant more to convey that liberals politicized it. They took it out of science and threw it on cable tv news so people would think about an issue, get scared about it, and then equate liberals as their saviors to this impending disaster.

 

You are certainly right that nothing can be predicted 100%. But, just so you understand, CO levels are not just higher, and temps are not just higher. CO levels are multiple times over what they have been in thousands of years! If you want to think that is just some normal fluctuation, then you are again choosing to be in denial of the evidence.

 

You are also right about the politics of it - no question about it. The Dems are using the issue as best they can. But since they happen to be right to make it a big deal, I can accept that (sort of a right answer for the wrong reasons thing).

[BigSqwert]

 

I was bored...and I like puns.

LOL

 

That really made me laugh.

 

I find it hilarious that people are ok with Gore spouting about the end times because of global warming. How many billions have gone into the research of meteorology? How many meteorologists are working right now? They can't get a f*cking forecast correct 24 hours from now. And you want me to believe some government report about the end times in 10 years based on temperature levels from 1750?

You consider meteorologists scientists? That's almost like calling a fortune teller a scientist.

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL

 

That really made me laugh.

You consider meteorologists scientists? That's almost like calling a fortune teller a scientist.

Well. meteorologists are scientists as well. But most weather-people are NOT meteorologists.

[BigSqwert]

Well. meteorologists are scientists as well. But most weather-people are NOT meteorologists.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's still a profession in which you analyze data, throw it into a computer and create models. It might not be as complex as climitalogy, but it's the same principle. You're ultimately trying to predict future events and no matter how good your data is or how good your model is, things don't always turn out the way it's predicted.

 

Questioning it is good, it should be done. But that is far different than taking a stance, having no evidence to back it up, censoring the other viewpoint from public view whenever possible, etc. Better instead to find evidence otherwise, or try to find other causes or reasons. I am in agreement with these statements, up until the one in bold, where you take the same tack that Kap did - you dismiss science as random ass guessing, which isn't true at all. The random ass guessing is what the people here who are in denial about it are doing - guessing with no evidence.

 

Sure, it's more complex than that, but it's still a crapshoot. There are far too many variables that could happen to be able to predict half the stuff they try to predict. Again, i'm not arguing global warming doesn't exist. In fact I think it does. I do, however, question (a) the human involvement in it (not that if we have caused it but to what degree) and (B) whats the effect going to be. But this point of contention is rarely discussed because the minute you question it people are all over you saying you don't believe in global warming and that you're ignoring science.

 

Ill try to dig up the articles i read about the hurricanes. I remember seeing them on drudge (*ducks out of the way). I know there were two or three articles about it.

[kapkomet]

It's still a profession in which you analyze data, throw it into a computer and create models. It might not be as complex as climitalogy, but it's the same principle. You're ultimately trying to predict future events and no matter how good your data is or how good your model is, things don't always turn out the way it's predicted.

Sure, it's more complex than that, but it's still a crapshoot. There are far too many variables that could happen to be able to predict half the stuff they try to predict. Again, i'm not arguing global warming doesn't exist. In fact I think it does. I do, however, question (a) the human involvement in it (not that if we have caused it but to what degree) and (B) whats the effect going to be. But this point of contention is rarely discussed because the minute you question it people are all over you saying you don't believe in global warming and that you're ignoring science.

Ill try to dig up the articles i read about the hurricanes. I remember seeing them on drudge (*ducks out of the way). I know there were two or three articles about it.

Especially around here. I can think of no other subject that gets more hotly defended then global warming. DO NOT QUESTION THE GORACLE!

[Balta1701]

<!--quoteo(post=1471586:date=Jul 13, 2007 -> 09:13 AM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->

<!--quotec-->

For the last two years since Katrina we were lead to believe by the overwhelming majority of scientists that global warming will cause not only an increase in hurricanes (or forces that cause them) but also an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. They forecasted the biggest number of hurricanes on record for each of the last two years. They used every piece of available data, every scientific model/program/whathaveyou, and spit out this grand theory that we were going to get pummeled by storm after storm. And you know what happened? Jack diddly f*ckin squat. For two years hurricanes have been a non-story.

Last year was also an El Nino year. I'm not exactly certain why, but this is something that seems to be difficult to predict until one actually forms in the western pacific. It is well established that El Nino years do a lot of wierd things, like say, killing the snowpack in the Sierras and leading L.A. to ask folks to conserve water and so forth. One of the weird things El Nino does is create heavy winds over the Central Atlantic, winds that tend to shear apart any storms that try to organize.

[sox4lifeinPA]

 

I was bored...and I like puns.

 

 

bump