Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

Sorry, but to conclude that an increase of plant growth is positive I do not need long research, here common sense is sufficient. I have no problem accepting that sometime somewhere this may also lead to problems. But the very idea that increasing plant growth could be overall negative is really funny.

I expect a non-propaganda source, once there is enough time in a long film (contrary to a few lines in a posting) to consider various objections. And to consider pro- as well as counterarguments. And, no, I don't refuse to consider the arguments proposed by propaganda videos. You obviously don't know the basic rules of truth-finding in a propaganda world. The basic strategy is not simply to reject everything coming from a propaganda source. It is, first, to use propaganda from all participants - comparison can give a lot of information. And, second, extracting information from the propaganda source. Say, SANA writes "the army has attacked terrorist hideouts in X and killed a lot of terrorists". This information confirms that the army does not control X, and makes plausible that an army attack on X has been repelled.

You obviously don't get it. If one participates in a forum which spreads one-sided propaganda, the best one can do is to spread there what is claimed by the other side. This allows the reader to compare the claims of above sides. If this would be a forum of climate change deniers, I would probably post some information about those mainstream claims that are ignored in that forum, thus, distribute propaganda from the other side.

You name the observation that some media systematically lie a conspiracy? For me, this is observation. See http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870 how I observe such things.

I don't follow the money because I can afford it. A combination of low interest for expansive material things and savings of the past (which were possible because of the first point). There was the straightforward possibility to follow the money - to develop some mainstream theory in established science. Sorry, no interest. Even if all those mainstream theories are usually fine, as scientific theories, I'm simply not interested.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To conclude that the effect of the current CO2 boosting on plant growth is and will be "clearly positive" you need to do some research. Quite a bit of it.

Sure, but only serious ones. Not your list.

That requires the ability to identify the sides, and recognize propaganda in the first place.

The only benefit here in comparing propaganda campaigns is to learn about propaganda.

Why not post reality based claims and arguments, instead?

If non-propaganda sources are available, as in most scientific matters (such as climate change), it's a waste of time.

And if you apply your propaganda handling truth-finding rules to honest sources, you will mislead yourself - the implications are in the opposite direction, often. Like this:

But if instead of SANA you get this news from an honest source, you would conclude instead that it is now plausible that the army controls X, and less likely that an army attack on X has been repelled.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, your climate change denialism includes conspiracy thinking.

I apologize for my use of an English idiom. My point was that you are adopting a conspiracy theory that ignores the people with obvious motive, a lot of money, and a track record of either paying for testimony or giving testimony for pay.

Do you know that some of the biggest climate change deniers were also big in denying that smoking causes health problems?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with this sort of argument is that a person who is wrong on one subject, isn't automatically wrong on all other subjects.

I believe in the climate change, just I want to point out, that the sort of argument used here is moot.

CO2 does affect plant growth (gardeners use that in glass houses) but in nature plant growths is limited also by minerals in the soil, water supply and sunlight. So in some cases more CO2 increases plant growth while in other cases it doesn't.

AFAIK this is currently in research, and the preliminary results are quite contradictionary. In some cases, more CO2 actually caused less growth in some plant types, for unknown reason. So in addition to the factors listed above, it also depends on the plants in question - plant metabolism seems to be too different to allow a general answer like "more CO2 cuases more growth" - it only does so for some plants, and only if there is enough water, light and the right minerals in the soil.

 

The point is not relevant to climate change, it is relevant to whether or not there is a conspiracy. In this case, the only people with a history of being paid to take a scientific position that is obviously false are on the side denying climate change. So if one is to believe that there is a conspiracy, it seems more likely that one side is doing it than the other.

 

Its much more difficult to find them and identify them. Ok, if you pay me for a year of research, I will write you a nice non-propaganda work about this question. For cheap, you can expect only a few not well-thought ideas or copypaste of known propaganda sources.

Climate science is science with too much political interest behind, so, I agree that in most scientific matter non-propaganda sources are available, but not in climate science. This is the same problem as we had with the economy of child labor. With the same consequences: To find the information, you better become, essentially, a climate scientist yourself. At least you have to read a lot of scientific papers, and not only titles and abstracts, but the content too. A lot of work.

And in politics there are none. Among bloggers there are honest people, who don't lie. But they are also supporting one side or another, and they have also their weak points.

No, I wouldn't. BTW, I have not said SANA lies - I have not catched them yet lying. But it is very one-sided. Information about successes of terrorists you simply will not find there. But also no claims of taking some town which later appear false.
And in general there simply is no reputable source. There are sources with quite different weak points, as well as strong points. You have to find out which are weak points, which are strong points. So, there is no general rule which I could use for SANA as well as some other source. It was simply an example how a clearly one-sided source can be used.

 

LOL, I like words like "denialism". In fact, my position is a little bit different than denial of climate change. I like higher temperatures, so that I'm quite comfortable with this climate change.

Sorry, I do not have a conspiracy theory. What I have is an aversion against propaganda, and I see a lot of climate change propaganda araound. If I see propaganda, I do not have to invent a conspiracy to explain that propaganda - that there is propaganda, is, judging from the evidence, a fact of live which one can easily identify.

The point being? As I have already explained, if people doubt the official propaganda, the often start to doubt the propaganda in several different domains, so this would be nothing strange. And that there are many people who write what they are paid for is a triviality, journalism is a profession.

 

That is true, but the point was (which seems to not have been understood): There are prostitute scientists who will publish for pay and many of the same old "pro smoking ones" now get paid by "big oil" et. al. for "climate change is not man made" papers.

 

That's Type III denial. "Sure, the climate might be changing, and we might be doing it, but the changes will be good."

Then why do you spew it so regularly? I suspect that like most people prone to believing in propaganda, you merely prefer your own brand.

 

Amen.

 

I'm not having much trouble. And I'm not spending any money or time.

And so I used it to illustrate how failure to identify reputable sources as reputable, rather than corrupt, would lead you to mislead yourself by wrongly evaluating their information.
You insist on applying propaganda evaluation techniques to responsible communication, and it leads to self-deception. Remember: physical reality is one-sided.

No more so than nuclear physics, or biology, or medicine, or chemistry in general. Is all of science just a propaganda marketing competition by shysters, in your view?

Actually, since climate is a macroscopic and global phenomenon with centuries of observation across all human political systems behind the science of it, it turns out to be easier to filter the influence of power than in, say, genetic engineering, or weapons research.

And you keep talking about "political" interests - the major corrupting influence on most Western science is economic interest. It's corporations and their bribed representatives who do most of the deceiving about science in the US media.

It's the same problem you had, you mean. Reality that conflicted with your political preconceptions was invisible to you.

That ridiculous level of willful ignorance may be what renders you incapable of detecting propaganda in this field.

 

May be it is Type XVIII denial. Doesn't matter - once every deviation from the official party line is named denial, it does not really matter which number will be assigned to it.

Of course. If everybody believes only his own propaganda, we will have an almost ideal society - everybody critical about the propaganda of all others. Instead of a single Orwellian NWO press controlling all the sheeple.

 

Yes, you simply follow the mainstream. Of your political color.

But there is no big danger for this. Most propaganda violates basic rules of journalism in quite obvious ways. Of course, if one evaluates only simple formal criteria, one can be fooled by more sophisticated propaganda, which hides behind an objective cover. As I was fooled a short time around the 90s by Western quality press (which was better than Western TV, which I had already known like everybody in Eastern Germany, with above being much better than all the communist propaganda). But today the quality of this press (or its cleverness to hide its propaganda) has severely decreased.

No. BTW, you have mingled, in your example, techniques of propaganda identification from techniques of extraction of useful information from propaganda sources. Which is what you have to do if you have no neutral reputable sources at all, which is the rule in times of war.

Fortunately it is not. And that's why every propaganda source faces information which it does not like to distribute, for propaganda reasons. And this makes it, in most of the cases, quite easy to identify it.

About climate science being political:

I disagree. Much more. I see a lot climate change propaganda in state-owned media. Of course, there are a lot of sellers of marvel medicines or so who like to make claims about their miracles supported by science, but I doubt that this really distorts medicine.

In weapons research propaganda is secondary. What really matters is what the own weapons can really do. So, or your weapon research is objectively successful, or it is not worth the money spend on it. There is, of course, also the aim to present the own weapons as more powerful than they are in propaganda, an aspect of psychological warfare. But this does not distort the weapon industry itself.

Sorry, but it makes not that much sense. The industry needs and uses money to bribe the government. This is the job of the lobbies. They act optimally in a hidden way. Only a few of them really depend on propaganda, to justify a lot of government spending into their own industries. This is, of course, the weapons industry, which likes the cold war (so we have a lot of war propaganda), and all the green industries (renewable energies, various bio-nonsense which requires fear propaganda against anything else, like products with genes ;-) ) Forbidding competition sometimes also needs some propaganda support, like killing Bangladesh clothing industry requires "child work" and "sweatshop" propaganda against them.

But I think the decisive power behind propaganda is the aim of the state to become stronger. Which, in general, requires fear propaganda against anything not "regulated" by the state and any organizations not controlled by the state. All one can say here is that this is hard to distinguish, given that the big industry rules the state, and that they like to use the increasing power of the state in their own interest.

Which you claim without evidence. Because some short notes about the obvious, trivial counterarguments against the propaganda, which is presented here, does not mean that I believe uncritically what the other side claims.

 

So, to follow your logic: only the government does propaganda. And the fossil fuel industry, one of the largest industry, controls the government. So the fossil fuel industry gets the government to say that climate change is happening through propaganda and then fights this propaganda because... OK, at this point, I can't understand the crazy anymore.

This is why we shouldn't take libertarians seriously.

 

Not only, of course.

Which industry controls the government is far away from clear. Except that the military-industrial complex is known to be quite strong. Moreover, the connection between particular firms (which are the players in this game) and what they want with common interests of the whole industry is far from obvious.

One of the main interests of the big players of a particular industry is always the restriction of the competitors. What would be ideal for the established fossil fuel industry? Quotas distributed by the government. They, of course, get their quotas, proportional to what they produce now. Once quotas restrict the supply, prices rise, but the competitors cannot use this - they don't have the quotas.

The left tends to think that the lobby consists of altruists who fight for the interests of whole industries. Funny. The big players are clever enough to sell their interest in fascist overregulation behind left anticapitalist ideology. Ok, not really clever - people with IQ higher than room temperature can easily understand that such proposals harm the poor. But clever enough to convince the left politicians to support this nonsense in exchange for campaign contributions from the big players, and clever enough for the left sheeple.

 

You are crazy.

 

Yes, there is. It appears to be an accomplished fact, in your case. You are now treating peer reviewed research from decades before the current political battles, from people who are not in the current political battles, and from parties with no political or economic attachments to the current political battles, all of these varied and unconnected sources in agreement and accompanied by solid arguments based in observable physical reality, as propaganda. That has misled you, badly.

That's hopelessly naive. Are you some kind of child? Teenager? Google "Star Wars / Reagan", or something.

It does mean that what you post here, so perfectly aligned with the rightwing corporate propaganda operations we live in these days, and so completely deluded with regard to physical reality, is what you think of as "obvious counterarguments". Hence: abysmal and willful ignorance of physical reality, rendering you incapable of detecting propaganda.

This is bizarre. I have no idea where you get your ideas of "left", but in my part of the planet absolutely nobody on the left regards the fossil fuel lobby as a collection of altruists, nobody in that lobby is fighting for "overregulation", there are no such campaign contributions for anyone on the left, there is no such promulgation of left anticapitalist ideology being funded by the "big players", and so forth. Ain't happenin'.

 

?? Deviation isn't denial. Denial is denial. It is a word that means something specific.

Sounds like you are well on your way to that ideal society, then. I prefer to think on my own.

 

No, I have not yet questioned a single peer-reviewed paper. What I have named propaganda is what the mass media present. What is written in peer-reviewed media, one would have to study carefully.

What I expect is a picture which is, first, a detectable difference between what journalists say and what scientists interviewed by journalists say. The same difference add from what the these scientists have told the journalists to what is written in titles and abstracts. Then, again the same difference between abstracts and the content of the papers. Then, the same difference again to scientific truth they would tell you if you ask them personally what they really think. Ok, this is a prediction, test it out, I have made the same prediction for the child labor issue, you have tested it with one paper, and that paper had, indeed, supported many of my claims directly - but not in the title and the abstract.

This is the classical picture for the reaction of scientists to political pressure. They try not to lie, and seldom lie. But they don't cry about their truth, it remains hidden in the content. And, as well, in the unpublished papers and the research nobody is doing because everybody knows the result will not be politically correct.

Blablabla. As if you have any read scientific papers beyond the abstracts. You have been told that everybody who rejects the party line is paid by the rightwing corporations, and so everybody which contradicts the mainstream is so perfectly aligned. This is sufficient for you not to care at all about the content.

Unable to understand jokes? Or have you simply been unable to get the point? Of course, for the left every capitalist pig is a horrible egoist, that's a triviality. But somehow they are always supposed to fight for common interests of the bourgeoisie, or of the fossil fuel industry, or some other evil entity of capitalism. Of course, propaganda does not have to be consistent.

You seem to believe that campaign contributions for the left come from the poor, everyone pays 5$ because he cannot afford more, or so. LOL. It may be sometimes interesting to see where the contributions come from. But this is interesting only for the right, to make fun of these hypocrites, and if such contribution are too embarrassing, this may give also some results like this: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/

Don't worry, the private prison companies will find a way to spend in a less open way to Hitlary. Last but not least, they have lived nicely during Obama time, "The biggest private prison owner in America, The Corrections Corporation of America, has seen its profits increase by more than 500% in the past 20 years. Moreover, the business’ growth shows no sign of stopping, having already approached 48 states to take over government-run prisons." But don't worry, Hitlary will care about the poor prison inmates. In particular, she will seriously fight problems with obesity: "A psychiatrist who investigated a privately run prison in Mississippi found that the inmates were severely underfed and looked “almost emaciated.” During their incarceration, prisoners dropped anywhere from 10 to 60 pounds." http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20880-for-profit-prisons-eight-statistics-that-show-the-problems

And, sorry, may be you don't know, but the overregulation is a fact - simply try to find out how many meters of regulations are there. And it is nothing the population wants. It is the lobby which wants it. Learn a little bit economy to understand who profits from overregulation. The answer is simple - the big firms already on the market, which are already producing the things which fit all the regulations.

 

Yes, it is a quite evil deviation. If you are guilty only of a deviation, a few years in a correction facility will be sufficient to correct you. If you are in denial, this is hopeless, you are a danger to society and have to be defanged. Or so.