Do you regard the researchers in the field as "one side"? Are the Copenhagen folks abandoning reason and sense? The IPCC - are they a "side", and if so have they abandoned reason and sense?
First, researchers in the field fall on both sides of the debate. Second, you specifically were talking about the politicization of the debate, and both "sides" (read: parties) seem to have abandoned all sense in the matter. Ether way, I don't even know why I keep responding to your posts, as they keep dragging the thread further afield.
The research doesn't. As usual, the physical reality is biased. Not really. What we have is a media manipulation, attempting to poison the well against contributions to the debate from research and physical reality. Because one "side" is favored by research and physical reality, and the other side wants to win. As far as identifying "sides" with political Parties, an example of an abandonment of sense and reason by the Dem "side" equivalent to James Inhofe's speeches and actions, Karl Rove's assertions and arguments, or any EPA or corporate regulatory official during the W administration, is necessary here.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11...lists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722 http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...n-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/sensenbrenner-climate-fascism/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/g...suicide-by-ignoring-the-scoop-of-the-century/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/g...in-the-world-is-a-glorified-un-press-release/ http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/who_needs_data.html
Climate-Gate? More like Idiot-Gate. So many supposedly intelligent people turning out to be so many complete intellectual failures, on so many levels. And you all subscribed to them without question. I see why all along you all have insisted on this being a "progressive" gated-community. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://www.adn.com/3437/story/1080124.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...now-go-zone-with-16-inches-falling-today.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6050LW20100106 "Cities across eastern and central China are rationing power for industry and urging residents to limit gas use after a wave of icy weather sent energy demand soaring while straining supplies of coal that were already tight."--ROTFL!!!
From Photizo's link: One clear implication there is that those 9000 PhDs and so forth who have signed petitions etc agree with those three points presented as describing them. That is a lie. The other implication is that all three of those three points contradict assertions made by "believers" - that there are "believers" who claim that CO2 is not necessary and beneficial for plant life or whatever, that there are "believers" who regard the climate model projections as sure-fire future events rather than dangerous possibilities, and so forth. That is also a lie. We have passed the point when the retailing of these fabrications and slanders and lies can be excused by confusion. All these issues have been dealt with in public , clearly and thoroughly - only the dishonest and the duped continue to spread them around as legitimate discussion points.
An "implication" is a logical relationship. If his reasoning is fallacious, this does not necessarily imply an intent to deceive...there isn't enough information present for you to make such "fabrications and slanders"... It has been the efforts of skeptics--embodying the scientific ideal--that have brought us past "the point when the retailing of these fabrications and slanders and lies can be excused by confusion. All these issues have been dealt with in public , clearly and thoroughly - only the dishonest and the duped continue to spread them around as legitimate discussion points."
This is what the guy wrote: "But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. - - - - 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. - - - - More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report - - - - - - More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, - - - - " He specifically listed those people as examples of "the skeptics". Then he tells us, explicitly, what "the skeptics" (same term) believe that makes them "skeptics", i.e. different: "- - the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic - - - - skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life - - - skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide - - - " Now the fact is that those 9000 PhDs, 32,000 scientists, 700 scientists, and 800 scientists, do not all (or even most) agree with both the first and third and first part of the second of those, and everyone agrees with the second part of the second one, not just "skeptics". The fact is also that that first fact is well known and widely publicized by now, and every writer doing even minimal research for such an article has been so informed. Those were deceptive propaganda handouts in the first place, years ago, and they are now lies. So the writer is either very, very careless and slipshod and ignorant, or deliberately lying: either way, at this stage in the propaganda battle he is retailing lies. Those statements of his there cannot hide behind the confusion of their earlier promulgation - they have been debunked, and are now lies. There is no excuse for them any more.
Lets' look at your second posted article. It too features lies. Not errors, not excusable confusions early on, but deceptions and dishonesties well known to be so for years now. Once again we do not know whether the writer is a dupe or a paid deceiver and shill, but we can easily list a few things he says that no honest and even slightly competent researcher can have failed to find deceptive or untrue: Lie. That is not a "deeply cherished belief" of any "orthodoxy". Lie. The standard computer models "assert" no such thing - none of them. Deception. 2007 was an unusual all time record low area of Arctic ice. Some recovery was expected by everyone. Deception. Short term weather prediction and long term climate prediction do not involve the same models, factors, or uncertainties. To argue from one to another is not valid, and the person quoted is a professional in the field, who does or should know better.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...used-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html http://climategate.tv/?p=794
It's definitely an interesting thread on an volatile and complex topic. My skepticism over AGW stems more from the suspect political motivations of those most vocal about it, and Climategate only strengthened these suspicions. It seems that invariably the "solution" to AGW is some form of a redistribution of wealth. To many, AGW is a tool to advance political agendas. For example, does anyone know why 1990 was chosen as the "baseline" year for the Kyoto protocol? It seemed rather arbitrary to me until it was pointed out that RUSSIA's CO2 output peaked that year and declined after the USSR fell. I view this as "cover for the Socialists". I've heard similar exemptions wanting to be applied to China because "they are a burgeoning economy and Western countries were not shackled with CO2 restrictions during development".:bugeye: Throw out the Socialist political element from proposed AGW solutions and you will more easily convert me.
I'm also suspect of the political motivations of deniers. It seems they just want industry to make as much short term profit as possible, and F the planet.
Well a skeptic and a denier are not the same thing. I also don't work for "industry", and I'm not a Big Oil shill. You don't need to suspect my political motivations, for I am telling you what they are: I would rather take NO action to resolve AGW than advance a global Socialist political agenda.
