Denialism

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:21 pm

Heywould wrote:
And you prove my point again.

Let me ask you a simple question, why isn't the private business sector trying to help solve this "problem"? Why is it only government funded people and institutions that are sounding the alarm?
Really? Just government funded institutions?

First of all, you're wrong. You take the fact that you are unaware of private individuals, companies, or organizations trying to do something about the problem as reality. Took me about a minute to find this from the American Enterprise Institute:

http://www.aei.org/event/1728

Probably woudn't take long to find businesses offering various "green" products and services.

Second of all, if you were right it simply means that it wouldn't be profitable enough at this time.

Neither reason, by the way, has anything to do with science. Which of course, is telling to me.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:36 am

Notorious wrote: Please don't ever quote this article as usage again. It's awful and wrong. It isn't wrong in the sense that fats are bad and carbs are good (it's actually neither of those), but no one has been saying carbs>fats. This is like people who say egg cholesterol will kill you. One person does a study, everyone piles on even after the study has been proven false many times, and people refuse to learn.
Complex carbohydrates simply good for you
Whether you're an athlete, a diabetic or a heart patient, or you're suffering from high blood pressure or overweight, or you're just a healthy person interested in staying that way, a diet that is high in fiber and complex carbohydrates apparently is your best bet for living long and well. It may even help to protect you against cancer.
link
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Notorious
Posts: 11909
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:56 am

Re: Denialism

Post by Notorious » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:45 am

kramer wrote:
Complex carbohydrates simply good for you
Whether you're an athlete, a diabetic or a heart patient, or you're suffering from high blood pressure or overweight, or you're just a healthy person interested in staying that way, a diet that is high in fiber and complex carbohydrates apparently is your best bet for living long and well. It may even help to protect you against cancer.
link
Dude, you're saying stuff that bodybuilders and any nutritionist has been saying for years, that's my point. This isn't some new discovery that is lighting the nutrition world on fire. Go post these articles on bodybuilding.com or really any site about weight loss that isn't a gimmick, and you'll be told "cool story bro" or "duh thanks for the telling us what thousands of other articles before it already said."
Never Underestimate The Fart Of A Monarch

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:15 pm

Notorious wrote: Dude, you're saying stuff that bodybuilders and any nutritionist has been saying for years, that's my point. This isn't some new discovery that is lighting the nutrition world on fire. Go post these articles on bodybuilding.com or really any site about weight loss that isn't a gimmick, and you'll be told "cool story bro" or "duh thanks for the telling us what thousands of other articles before it already said."
I'm talking a few decades ago. Back in the eighties for example, complex carbs were thought by the majority of experts to be healthy for us.
And did you read the LATimes article? The header said "Scientists now saying carbs, not fat, are to blame for America's ills" which is another way of saying the scientists were initially wrong. Right?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Notorious
Posts: 11909
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:56 am

Re: Denialism

Post by Notorious » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:25 pm

kramer wrote:
I'm talking a few decades ago. Back in the eighties for example, complex carbs were thought by the majority of experts to be healthy for us.
And did you read the LATimes article? The header said "Scientists now saying carbs, not fat, are to blame for America's ills" which is another way of saying the scientists were initially wrong. Right?
That's science though, you're acting as if science isn't capable of receiving new information.

Complex carbohydrates are good for you, they're still good for you. Moderation is what's key and calorie count is still king for keeping obesity down. One of the reasons that the first article you listed is dumb is because it doesn't take protein allotment into account. There seems to be no record of how much protein those people were eating or what kind or if their metabolisms are comparable.

Do you even know the difference between complex carbs and simple carbs? The article you linked is referring to sugar (because of insulin spikes) and refined carbs otherwise known as simple carbs. Even the food they listed is simple carbs (white bread, white rice, etc.) You seem to not know very much about this and if you're only point is that science can change their opinion then I hate to tell you this but that's how the scientific works at the most basic method. If one day gravity is proved to actually function differently, are you going to be mad? No, it's science. You have to work based off assumptions of how things are understood right now.
Never Underestimate The Fart Of A Monarch

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:07 pm

Notorious wrote: That's science though, you're acting as if science isn't capable of receiving new information.

Complex carbohydrates are good for you, they're still good for you. Moderation is what's key and calorie count is still king for keeping obesity down. One of the reasons that the first article you listed is dumb is because it doesn't take protein allotment into account. There seems to be no record of how much protein those people were eating or what kind or if their metabolisms are comparable.

Do you even know the difference between complex carbs and simple carbs? The article you linked is referring to sugar (because of insulin spikes) and refined carbs otherwise known as simple carbs. Even the food they listed is simple carbs (white bread, white rice, etc.) You seem to not know very much about this and
My bad on the complex carbs. :D
Notorious wrote:if you're only point is that science can change their opinion then I hate to tell you this but that's how the scientific works at the most basic method. If one day gravity is proved to actually function differently, are you going to be mad? No, it's science. You have to work based off assumptions of how things are understood right now.
I agree, the science of something can change if/when new information becomes available. And that's fine.

Using your gravity example, I wouldn't give a rip if the science of gravity changed every ten years. Why? There is no leftist redistribution of wealth/tech, leftist politics, lower standard of living, and possible loss of democracy tied to the science of gravity. There is with AGW. That is why I want to raise the awareness of scientific consensuses that have turned out to be wrong.

The believers tout the 'consensus' as if it's coming right out of the Bible. That's fine. I just want people to know that scientific consensuses can (and have been) be wrong and that we should be skeptical of the science before diving trustingly head first into a reduction in lifestyle and all of the other leftist green hell egalitarian changes that would come with AGW solutions.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:30 am

I'm sure the Global Warming alarmists will dismiss this projects finding because they weren't peer reviewed by other global warming alarmists.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 26630.html
The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.

By ANNE JOLIS

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

Some climate alarmists claim that cyclones, such as Cyclone Yasi, are a result of man-made CO2 emissions.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas's ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain's GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames "the bad weather."

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain's future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.

A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia's infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.

But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma's military regime hadn't allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.

Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.

Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

http://www.djreprints.com

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:02 pm

sbayhills wrote:I'm sure the Global Warming alarmists will dismiss this projects finding because they weren't peer reviewed by other global warming alarmists.
It's not anything that those keeping up wouldn't know about.

The other day I was listening to an interview with climate scientist and political conservative, Kerry Emanuel. He was very concerned about how conservatives have taken to denialism as a default position. He said sooner or later some weather catastrophes are going to "rightly or wrongly" attributed to climate change, and the conservatives will be completely left out of the decision-making for solutions because they taken the position that it wasn't happening anyway. The left will have free reign in the decision-making process because the right seemed so incorrect.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:47 pm

Fordama wrote: It's not anything that those keeping up wouldn't know about.

The other day I was listening to an interview with climate scientist and political conservative, Kerry Emanuel. He was very concerned about how conservatives have taken to denialism as a default position. He said sooner or later some weather catastrophes are going to "rightly or wrongly" attributed to climate change, and the conservatives will be completely left out of the decision-making for solutions because they taken the position that it wasn't happening anyway. The left will have free reign in the decision-making process because the right seemed so incorrect.

Fordama
What a ridiculous statement to make.Global warming alarmists are the ones that have their mind set on blaming society for natural disasters. Rational adults have been saying for centuries that you can't predict the weather.

Heywould
Posts: 1443
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Heywould » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:02 pm

sbayhills wrote:
What a ridiculous statement to make.Global warming alarmists are the ones that have their mind set on blaming society for natural disasters. Rational adults have been saying for centuries that you can't predict the weather.
I can see a "carbon cycle" story in your future...
If I Had a Dollar for Every Time Capitalism was Blamed for Problems Caused by Government I'd Be a Fat Filmmaker with a Baseball Cap

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:16 pm

Fordama wrote:The other day I was listening to an interview with climate scientist and political conservative, Kerry Emanuel. He was very concerned about how conservatives have taken to denialism as a default position. He said sooner or later some weather catastrophes are going to "rightly or wrongly" attributed to climate change, and the conservatives will be completely left out of the decision-making for solutions because they taken the position that it wasn't happening anyway.
Then Kerry Emanuel doesn't understand what is going on around him... or maybe her? I don't know ...

Most rational folks don't deny the global has warmed (and, now cooled) ... the argument is and was what has caused/is causing it?

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:19 pm

sbayhills wrote: What a ridiculous statement to make..
Why do you suppose he said--and I even went out of my way to put it in quotes--rightly or wrongly?

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:20 pm

GOODave wrote:Then Kerry Emanuel doesn't understand what is going on around him... or maybe her? I don't know ...
Oh, he's quite aware.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:24 pm

Fordama wrote:Oh, he's quite aware.

Fordama
He either doesn't know or you or he misstated that position.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:24 pm

GOODave wrote: He either doesn't know or you or he misstated that position.
Nope, both of us were very clear.

What part did you not understand? The part where conservatives have taken the denialist position as a default? That doesn't seem to be confusing.

The part that a weather catastrophe, or catastrophes, will happen and will be blamed on climate change--rightly or wrongly. Is that confusing in some way?

And when that happens, the conservatives who have been taking the blanket "it ain't happening" stance the whole time will find themselves marginalized. That isn't very vague.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:29 pm

Fordama wrote: Nope, both of us were very clear.

What part did you not understand? The part where conservatives have taken the denialist position as a default? That doesn't seem to be confusing.

The part that a weather catastrophe, or catastrophes, will happen and will be blamed on climate change--rightly or wrongly. Is that confusing in some way?

And when that happens, the conservatives who have been taking the blanket "it ain't happening" stance the whole time will find themselves marginalized. That isn't very vague.

Fordama
Hey KenCoop, what's your concern if this happens and we get marginalized?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by Fordama » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:40 pm

kramer wrote:
Hey KenCoop, what's your concern if this happens and we get marginalized?
It's going to be straight, painful regulation, and all the voices are going to be on one side.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:03 pm

Fordama wrote:It's going to be straight, painful regulation,
They've wanted this for years along with a massive redistribution of our wealth and tech.

Fordama wrote: and all the voices are going to be on one side.

Fordama
Well, just about all the solutions I've seen so far benefit the left. Even cap-and-trade would be used to redistribute our wealth internationally. For example, we might buy emission credits from China (maybe by financing a hydroelectric dam) and once we buy these credits, the companies here buying them are going to pass on the costs to us.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24536
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:30 pm

kramer wrote: They've wanted this for years along with a massive redistribution of our wealth and tech.
Remember when you said you wanted proof of your being conspiratorial?

This is a good example.

Who is "they?"

Denialists like to present false choices. The notion that we have to go back to preindustrial state in order to control pollution is a line that’s been trotted out against every pollution measure over the last half century (along with "It’s about redistribution of wealth”). In fact, the history particularly of this country over that period shows that when you work responsibly you can reduce pollution without harming economic activity – indeed, those efforts spawn whole new industries of their own.

I believe a necessary step to control pollution will be a greater emphasis on telecommuting. The beginnings of it are already occurring.
Last edited by Wabash on Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:11 pm

Fordama wrote: Nope, both of us were very clear.

What part did you not understand? The part where conservatives have taken the denialist position as a default? That doesn't seem to be confusing.

The part that a weather catastrophe, or catastrophes, will happen and will be blamed on climate change--rightly or wrongly. Is that confusing in some way?

And when that happens, the conservatives who have been taking the blanket "it ain't happening" stance the whole time will find themselves marginalized. That isn't very vague.

Fordama
I was very clear where I thought he (and, now you) misunderstood the typical argument from Conservatives.

Was there some part of my response to you that confused you? It really was only a couple of sentences so hard to figure you couldn't figure it out: Yet, here we are.

Post Reply