How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Ron in Regina]

At times I'm a bit slow on the uptake (like last night :lol, but I'm try'n to keep up.

And dove-tailing into that concept of Epistemology as a theory of knowlwdge
focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar
notions such as truth, belief, and justification, also dealing with the means
of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different
knowledge claims.....would be this:

Science is not simply a body of facts. Rather, it's a rational process for
understanding our world in which theories are put forward, tested, revised
and tested again. Over time, the result is a clearer understanding of the
way things work.

Science is not about consensus -- 500 years ago the consensus among
the wisest men on the planet was that the earth was the centre of the universe,
the pivot point about which the entire heavens rotated.

Then a scientist named Copernicus appeared. He questioned the prevailing
wisdom, presented irrefutable evidence, and our understanding of the universe
changed.

It was a hard-fought battle for acceptance, for Copernicus's theories challenged
the positions of the most important institutions of his time. But robust theories are
able to withstand such pressures. Those that crumble under examination by a critical
eye must be modified.

This inherent tension between a theory's proponents and its critics is at the very
foundation of the scientific method. It's what makes the whole process work.

To dismiss critics trivializes their role in the debate, and carries with it a nasty personal
undertone. Science, starved of dissent, is no longer a method of understanding our
world, but simply another mechanism for the promulgation of dogma.

Often, those who reject conventional scientific wisdom are wrong. Occasionally, they are
correct. Always, they have a role to play in the process.

 

[Tonington]

Not necessarily a constructive role though. Should scientists spend their precious time responding to the whims of every contrarian, with reams of data, and explanations of why said contrarian is wrong? Do they respond to all the contrarians claiming vaccines are causing autism? Or is it better to spend as much of their precious time as possible searching for a cure for autism?

Consensus does exist. When results are robust to various methods, that is consensus. It's not really the goal, it's just an inevitable outcome as more researchers with different methods investigate similar phenomena.

 

[big]

Science is not about consensus -- 500 years ago the consensus among the wisest men on the planet was that the earth was the centre of the universe, the pivot point about which the entire heavens rotated.

Then a scientist named Copernicus appeared. He questioned the prevailing wisdom, presented irrefutable evidence, and our understanding of the universe changed.

Copernicus (1473-1543) is part of the prevailing naïve materialist conception of the Universe and Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) is part of the new (“anamorphistic”) paradigm. To understand the shift, take a look at this painting of Holbein and ask yourself why has he put this thing at the bottom of his painting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors_(Holbein)

 

[AnnaG]

Except, water (being the strange thing that it is) has a greater volume as a
solid than it does as a liquid.

Fill a glass bottle to the top, cap it, & put it in your freezer. What happens?

It freezes from the outside in trapping bubbles inside. Same as salt water. If it wasn't for the bubbles, it would be a lot less expansive unless it was heated, in which case, it is like pretty much anything else, it becomes warmer and expands.

General Chemistry Online: FAQ: Solutions: Does salt water expand as much as fresh water does when it freezes?

Thermal expansion of water in a pool | Dot Physics

So what would happen is that a lot of frozen water would melt, the trapped air would be freed, the melted water would run down and join the ocean water and expand as it warms.

 

[AnnaG]

Copernicus (1473-1543) is part of the prevailing naïve materialist conception of the Universe and Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) is part of the new (“anamorphistic”) paradigm. To understand the shift, take a look at this painting of Holbein and ask yourself why has he put this thing at the bottom of his painting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors_(Holbein)

He got a phone call and laid his brush down on the painting. Then he was distracted or lost interest temporarily long enough for the paint to dry and stuck the brush to the painting. Then he decided not to ruin his painting by ripping the brush off. Later thinking it would be hard to frame with the brush sticking out, he cut off the end.

 

[big]

He got a phone call and laid his brush down on the painting. Then he was distracted or lost interest temporarily long enough for the paint to dry and stuck the brush to the painting. Then he decided not to ruin his painting by ripping the brush off. Later thinking it would be hard to frame with the brush sticking out, he cut off the end.

You seem to have a lot of time to waste.

 

[AnnaG]

You seem to have a lot of time to waste.

Thanks for the concern but does it have anything to do with the topic? And I wouldn't call it wasting anyway. I learn stuff here. Do you?
Anyway, if you are that curious, I run everyday, I feed the chickens and other critters, I make most of the meals, I read, I post here, and sometimes I visit neighbors and friends. Do I pass inspection General?:roll:

 

[AnnaG]

More information gathering tools heading for orbit.

Satellite launched to monitor climate change - The Irish Times - Mon, Nov 02, 2009

 

[big]

Myths belong to traditional societies and GW belongs to modern societies. The title of this thread is so grossly misleading that Greenpeace activists should come to hijack it.

 

[Walter]

Peter Foster: A load of Hoggan-wash
Posted: November 19, 2009, 7:35 PM by NP Editor
The CBC has joined James Hoggan's smear campaign against climate skeptics

By Peter Foster​

The full weight of the radical environmental movement and its media arm, the CBC, is being brought down upon a small Calgary-based organization called Friends of Science, which has suggested that climate change should be the subject of debate. So it must be a front for “Big Oil.”

Friends has dared to produce a couple of radio ads that note that there has been no warming for 10 years, suggesting that the main cause of climate change is the sun, and recommending that it’s “time to get the facts and start thinking.”

Leading the charge against Friends is James Hoggan, a PR man who is also chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation. Mr. Hoggan has just co-authored a book called Climate Cover-Up, which suggests a massive industry-based programme of climate disinformation.

Mr. Hoggan, who is also responsible for a website that specializes in smearing climate skeptics, drew a bead on Friends during an interview yesterday morning with Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC’s The Current (there was also to be a segment on the Friends’ ad campaign on As It Happens last night). The Globe and Mail also took a drive-by swipe at Friends this week.

Mr. Hoggan’s broad claim is that there are hardly any credentialled skeptics, and those that do exist speak only as industry shills or right-wing mouthpieces. He notes that there isn’t much skepticism in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.

However, the debate is lopsided — or non-existent — not because of the state of knowledge but because governments have poured billions into making the anthropogenic case and squashing opposition to “official” science, while skepticism has been effectively barred from peer-reviewed journals, which have taken an anti-corporate, quasi-religious stance.

An editorial in Nature in 2001 attacked “certain industrial groups,” who “worked to establish a bogus scientific debate…” But the editorial confirmed massive bias and sent the signal that skeptical scientists need not submit papers for publication. Thereupon the dearth of published skepticism was interpreted as meaning that the case was closed.

 

[Avro]

YouTube - Casting Doubt on Climate Change - PT. - 1/2

YouTube - Casting Doubt on Climate Change - PT. 2/2

I can C&P as well....

 

[AnnaG]

I think the problem is that people just spew misleading info. This "Friends" group put out radio ads that there's been no warming for the past 10 years, but that flies in the face of the data that the data collectors have published. According to the people that actually collect the data, the past decade has been the warmest. So if there hasn't been any warming in the past 10 years, there sure has been in the past 20. I wonder how many satellites and ocean buoys this "Friends" group has out there collecting data. My guess would be none.

I'd also suggest that why these sceptics have been omitted from peer-reviewed journals is because their postulations are reviewed by their peers and shown to be full of holes.

Peter Foster: A load of Hoggan-wash
Posted: November 19, 2009, 7:35 PM by NP Editor
The CBC has joined James Hoggan's smear campaign against climate skeptics

By Peter Foster​

The full weight of the radical environmental movement and its media arm, the CBC, is being brought down upon a small Calgary-based organization called Friends of Science, which has suggested that climate change should be the subject of debate. So it must be a front for “Big Oil.”

Friends has dared to produce a couple of radio ads that note that there has been no warming for 10 years, suggesting that the main cause of climate change is the sun, and recommending that it’s “time to get the facts and start thinking.”

Leading the charge against Friends is James Hoggan, a PR man who is also chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation. Mr. Hoggan has just co-authored a book called Climate Cover-Up, which suggests a massive industry-based programme of climate disinformation.

Mr. Hoggan, who is also responsible for a website that specializes in smearing climate skeptics, drew a bead on Friends during an interview yesterday morning with Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC’s The Current (there was also to be a segment on the Friends’ ad campaign on As It Happens last night). The Globe and Mail also took a drive-by swipe at Friends this week.

Mr. Hoggan’s broad claim is that there are hardly any credentialled skeptics, and those that do exist speak only as industry shills or right-wing mouthpieces. He notes that there isn’t much skepticism in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.

However, the debate is lopsided — or non-existent — not because of the state of knowledge but because governments have poured billions into making the anthropogenic case and squashing opposition to “official” science, while skepticism has been effectively barred from peer-reviewed journals, which have taken an anti-corporate, quasi-religious stance.

An editorial in Nature in 2001 attacked “certain industrial groups,” who “worked to establish a bogus scientific debate…” But the editorial confirmed massive bias and sent the signal that skeptical scientists need not submit papers for publication. Thereupon the dearth of published skepticism was interpreted as meaning that the case was closed.

 

[big]

Peter Foster: A load of Hoggan-wash
Posted: November 19, 2009, 7:35 PM by NP Editor
The CBC has joined James Hoggan's smear campaign against climate skeptics

By Peter Foster​

The full weight of the radical environmental movement and its media arm, the CBC, is being brought down upon a small Calgary-based organization called Friends of Science, which has suggested that climate change should be the subject of debate. So it must be a front for “Big Oil.”

Friends has dared to produce a couple of radio ads that note that there has been no warming for 10 years, suggesting that the main cause of climate change is the sun, and recommending that it’s “time to get the facts and start thinking.”

Leading the charge against Friends is James Hoggan, a PR man who is also chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation. Mr. Hoggan has just co-authored a book called Climate Cover-Up, which suggests a massive industry-based programme of climate disinformation.

Mr. Hoggan, who is also responsible for a website that specializes in smearing climate skeptics, drew a bead on Friends during an interview yesterday morning with Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC’s The Current (there was also to be a segment on the Friends’ ad campaign on As It Happens last night). The Globe and Mail also took a drive-by swipe at Friends this week.

Mr. Hoggan’s broad claim is that there are hardly any credentialled skeptics, and those that do exist speak only as industry shills or right-wing mouthpieces. He notes that there isn’t much skepticism in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.

However, the debate is lopsided — or non-existent — not because of the state of knowledge but because governments have poured billions into making the anthropogenic case and squashing opposition to “official” science, while skepticism has been effectively barred from peer-reviewed journals, which have taken an anti-corporate, quasi-religious stance.

An editorial in Nature in 2001 attacked “certain industrial groups,” who “worked to establish a bogus scientific debate…” But the editorial confirmed massive bias and sent the signal that skeptical scientists need not submit papers for publication. Thereupon the dearth of published skepticism was interpreted as meaning that the case was closed.

Yet again, Walter has cut this article before a crucial sentence:

"Friends was indeed given money several years ago by Jim Buckee, when he ran Talisman Energy, to produce a video."

 

[Avro]

Yet again, Walter has cut this article before a crucial sentence:

"Friends was indeed given money several years ago by Jim Buckee, when he ran Talisman Energy, to produce a video."

Shock8O8O

 

[big]

Shock8O8O

What would stun me is a reply from Walter himself.

 

[Avro]

What would stun me is a reply from Walter himself.

I've been looking for one for a long time, if he can't find an article to do it for him he just slinks away.

 

[big]

I've been looking for one for a long time, if he can't find an article to do it for him he just slinks away.

You're quite generous toward Walter by saying that he is trying to find something; I think deniers are force-fed and they can only post their dejections.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The side that needs to call the other side names demonstrates a weakness in
either their argument or debating skills. Be that calling someone a Contrarian
or a Heretic or a Denier or what have you....

What name calling has Walter had to lower himself to doing? If it has
happened, then I've missed it....

Walter's stance in this debate may not be the popular opinion, but he's
conducting his debate with honor & dignity.
_______________________________

 

[Tonington]

Is calling a person a denier worse than calling them cultists and radicals Ron?

 

[AnnaG]

Whatever. The last few posts have been off-topic. Someone here makes a habit of hijacking threads.