How's all that climate change BS workin' for y'all?

[just-a-regular-guy]

Originally Posted by O Death

Perhaps what is a bit deceptive is the decision to post it in the Environment and Energy forum.

I'm pretty sure I would have posted an article about some guy who blew his family away over fears his Toyota would uncontrollably fly off a cliff ala Thelma and Louise in the Transportation and Automotive forum mainly because I am brand new at these interweb forums and don't know any better. Doncha pros just hate us rookies?

[autumngal]

Originally Posted by Aging Hipster

I agree with you O Death, it can be very difficult to talk of these situations when people are mislead so much that they resort to murdering their own children based on paranoia created by so much propaganda that they saw no way out and to save their children the supposed pain later they murdered them now, or attempted to in the case of the one.

God bless the little child, the little girl, and may she find greater hope in those that raise her.

It's a crazy situation when one is pulled into something like this. And for a global warming scare? Very sad indeed about this lil gal.
In the article it states,

The cops found a letter on the table alluding to the couple’s worry about global warming and their anger at the government’s lack of interest in the matter."

To actually have a whole family murdered by one of their own, expecting their Gov't, or lack of, to come to the rescue over global warming is reality of some of the mindset out there today.

[Belfrey]

Originally Posted by Tot ziens

IPCC author Stephen Schneider
Discover magazine in 1989:

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Why not put the quote in full context?

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. [emphasis added]

The clipped portion you quoted is often used to allege that scientists are intentionally misleading the public, but in fact the author was making a very different point - that the conservative way in which scientists traditionally communicate with each other doesn't "sell" to the general public. He was saying that with a topic of such broad importance and relevance outside of the scientific community, scientists had to learn how to effectively communicate the issue to non-scientists, hopefully without being any less honest.

Originally Posted by Tot ziens

There has been four decades of misinformation and cherry picking statistics by both sides on the issue, and unfortunately for the folks saying the debate is over, it’s going to be a long road ahead to restore credibility.

IMO, the only way to move forward is to revisit ALL the evidence. We only know what we have been told.

Well, one of the great things about this particular topic is that much of the evidence (datasets, models, etc.) are available to the public, if they take the time to go into them. The openness and transparency of this field of research is truly remarkable, compared to other scientific fields.

[Belfrey]

Originally Posted by autumngal

Evidence? There's evidence? Isn't most of it flawed with false data and/or destroyed?

No, it isn't. What data do you think were falsified and/or destroyed?

[Aging Hipster]

Belfry please read this post refering to the initial topic of this thread.

http://greatdebateforum.com/showpost...8&postcount=26

[Belfrey]

Originally Posted by Aging Hipster

Belfry please read this post refering to the initial topic of this thread.

http://greatdebateforum.com/showpost...8&postcount=26

Hi Hipster! I did read that, and the rest of the thread, before responding to the post by Tot ziens. I will avoid responding to points not directly pertaining to the OP in the future, if that's the way this forum runs. Although I note that no one made the same admonishment to Tot ziens.

[Aging Hipster]

Originally Posted by Belfrey

Hi Hipster! I did read that, and the rest of the thread, before responding to the post by Tot ziens. I will avoid responding to points not directly pertaining to the OP in the future, if that's the way this forum runs. Although I note that no one made the same admonishment to Tot ziens.

Personally I waited and hoped that someone would get it on thier own. I don't like pointing out the obvious but some people seem to avoid the obvious in their own attempt and desire to argue what is on thier minds rather than what the original poster wishes to debate about.

I am glad that you read the rest of the thread before you posted. Few it seems to me do that simple task.

[Konrad]

It's sad, really. A lot of people who are actually good willed fall for these tricks, and it's simply depressing. Anything that has to do with the world dying, or with us destroying our world and ourselves, can lead to these unnecessary self murders.

It's not just global warming. It's just this constant paranoia and remorse from people who want to be good and want to help the world be a better place, and consider themselves as damaging threats to mankind and to our world.
As an example, one good friend of mine keeps telling me that we are destroying our world. I keep hearing from her that we're better off dead than self destructing and destroying the Earth. What kind of retarded behaviour is that? People just seem to want to be too good and feel some sort of awful remorse whenever they hear this world's atrocities, thinking they take part in them. IE : "I have food in my plate and food in my stomach, yet these poor children in Africa keep dying of famine. I'm participating to their death". What a silly, silly thing to say. And because of this and similar "issues", people end up suiciding for the sake of good ol' Earth and good ol' mankind, as if their deaths will change anything and as if their lives had any impact on the world market and on the exploitation and death of Africans. Global warming is one of the most evident manifestations of these "world threats" and every single person on the planet is participating to global warming. As such, this is the kind of stuff it provokes to naive, yet most likely good natured people.

It depresses me to see how many fundamentally good people can fall to this.