Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Firecat]

Jim, I do see that you are intelligent, rational, and generally well-educated. And your points arent lost on me. I do agree that everything is worth looking into. If you are just opposed to the term "settled" that's fine. I can live with that. It's why I said highly likely instead of true. I should choose my words more carefully especially in this sort of discussion.

For the most part I dislike Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He's a bit smarmy.

It's a fair request to ask, but rather than post up one article, which leads to you then doing the same in rebuttal, etc. which will get us (you and I, not mankind) nowhere, I ask you google two numbers. "97" see what autofill suggests next. Then read away. There will no doubt be many crackpot mythbuster sites from people who barely have 2 brain cells to rub together, but if you look beyond those superficial loudmouths, there are some genuinely educated people showcasing opposing views.

Again, I don't pretend to know the answer: my only contention is that it is not "open and shut."


The latter? Yes. See right above your quote for my position.

Yes, I know about the stat that's put out there about 97% of scientists yada yada. Which is why I asked for a scientific body. Not an article or random scientist. Because most (I'm being generous because I think it's every single one) scientific bodies have come to the conclusion about climate change and man made causes

This is from NASA and includes statements from such bodies
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Also from NASA, generally evidence about climate change (which is less appropriate to this discussion because it's not being debated)
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edit*


I would also like to ask, genuinely, what the motivation of these bodies would be to lie or misinform. I don't think there is a profit motive. Whereas many of the scientists that have disagreed with the consensus are comprised by the oil and gas industry for example (but in other ways too). There is a motive there

 

[prizrak]

I contend that nearly everyone is taking that exact tact, and instead of providing rational discourse backed by evidence, you have the chicken little screaming.

There is quite a bit of scientific literature that describes why they think that. As one example there are studies done in polar glaciers that show CO2 levels from different eras on our planet and there is a pretty clear correlation between CO2 levels and what we know of climate from those eras.

We also have a pretty good idea of natural CO2 emissions and they simply do not account for the amount of it in the atmosphere. However when adding manmade the numbers match up.

Also do keep in mind that Exxon has known that fossil fuels are likely to lead to global warming for almost 40 years by now: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

When even scientist/celebrity Degrasse Tyson (ugh) cannot have this discussion without resorting to statements that are tantamount to science = democracy (my words, not his), and then goes to use the same anecdotes that Bill Nye uses that exclaim ANY change = man-made climate change, it should give people pause.

When he says "scientific consensus" he doesn't mean that everyone voted, it means that people studied the data and arrived at similar conclusions. To give you a crude analogy if you, me and Spectre all look at a Corvette and say "yep it's a Corvette" we have reached a consensus based on observation, we didn't just decide it was a Corvette when it was really a Mustang.

 

[ahpadt]

No, they have not.

Citation needed.

 

[NecroJoe]

I ask you google two numbers. "97" see what autofill suggests next. Then read away.

I think your Google is different than my Google:

 

[TC]

 

[prizrak]

Should probably go into free speech thread and talk about retarded.

 

[Interrobang]

We've got a great scandal going on in France at the moment ... [...]

So the guy who said he would step down from the candidacy for President if the prosecutors would start a formal investigation - refuses to step down after the prosecutors started a formal investigation. The Republicans tried to get the guy who finished second in the primary to run despite that, but he (basically) gave them the finger ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-fillon-presidential-candidate-a7613351.html

[...]?I confirm once and for all that I will not be a candidate to be President of the Republic,? he said.
The former Prime Minister and Mayor of Bordeaux was seen as a possible alternative candidate for the French conservatives after Mr Fillon?s campaign crumbled following allegations of corruption.* [...]?I appreciate the disappointment that this decision will cause and the criticism. But I do not want to hand over my reputation and the one of my family as lifeblood to those destroying reputations.? [...]

Meanwhile Madame Le Pen from the far right has had her parliamentary immunity lifted and will also be facing charges in France for spreading pictures of beheadings and the very same type of fraud that Mr Fillion is in trouble over (minus the nepotism).
Difference here is that her supporters don't give a damn if she follows the law or not. She can be misusing funds all she wants, they will still vote for her because she wants to make France great again or something like that ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-misspent-front-national-france-a7556771.html

This all in an election where the governing socialist party have no chance of winning and the current President does not even run for a second term in office because he does not want the embarrassment when he loses in the first round of the election and the current front runner (a Centrist) in the polls does not even belong to a political party ...

Basically france has seen the us-election last year and went: "we won't lose to the americans in terms of drama!"

* it's actually not corruption but about fraud and nepotism. But hey ...

 

[JimCorrigan]

Jim, I do see that you are intelligent, rational, and generally well-educated. And your points arent lost on me. I do agree that everything is worth looking into. If you are just opposed to the term "settled" that's fine. I can live with that. It's why I said highly likely instead of true. I should choose my words more carefully especially in this sort of discussion.

Whaddaya mean, generally well educated?

Yes, you are correct. My main point of contention is that the issue is "settled", not that it is a "hoax" or possibly not happening at all.

Yes, I know about the stat that's put out there about 97% of scientists yada yada. Which is why I asked for a scientific body. Not an article or random scientist. Because most (I'm being generous because I think it's every single one) scientific bodies have come to the conclusion about climate change and man made causes

This is from NASA and includes statements from such bodies
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Also from NASA, generally evidence about climate change (which is less appropriate to this discussion because it's not being debated)
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edit*


I would also like to ask, genuinely, what the motivation of these bodies would be to lie or misinform. I don't think there is a profit motive. Whereas many of the scientists that have disagreed with the consensus are comprised by the oil and gas industry for example (but in other ways too). There is a motive there

I disagree that the motive for scientists exclaiming anthropomorphic climate change is not a financial one. And it's also political. To wit: http://www.realclearinvestigations....imate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html

Excerpt (square brackets mine):

When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, [William] Happer, [professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences] said: ?Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn?t toe the alarmists? company line.?

That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers. Nevertheless, new organizations like the CO2 Coalition, founded in 2015, suggest the debate is more evenly matched intellectually than is commonly portrayed. In addition to Happer, the CO2 Coalition?s initial members include scholars with ties to world-class institutions like MIT, Harvard and Rockefeller University. The coalition also features members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorology Society, along with policy experts from the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and Tufts University?s Fletcher School.

... and

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us.

?I actually doubt that,? he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.

?They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,? he said. ?Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.?

The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.

?Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,? Lindzen said. ?Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ?climate scientist,? and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.?

I'm not immune to the irony within this article quoting scientists hoping Trump ushers in an age of more broadly accepted perspectives.

For balance, also from the same article (emphasis mine):

Michael E. Mann, another climate change veteran, is also doubtful about a rapprochement. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and author of the ?hockey stick? graph, which claims a sharp uptick in global temperatures over the past century, believes ardently that global warming is a dire threat. He concluded a Washington Post op-ed this month with this foreboding thought: ?The fate of the planet hangs in the balance.? Mann acknowledges a brutal war of words has engulfed climate science. But in an e-mail exchange with RealClearInvestigations, he blamed opponents led by ?the Koch brothers? for the polarization.
Michael Mann

Mann did hint, however, there may be some room for discussion.

?In that poisonous environment it is difficult to have the important, more nuanced and worthy debate about what to do about the problem,? he wrote. ?There are Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Inglis and George Shultz trying to create space for that discussion, and that gives me hope. But given that Donald Trump is appointing so many outright climate deniers to key posts in this administration, I must confess that I ? and many of my fellow scientists ? are rather concerned.?

*****

There is quite a bit of scientific literature that describes why they think that. As one example there are studies done in polar glaciers that show CO2 levels from different eras on our planet and there is a pretty clear correlation between CO2 levels and what we know of climate from those eras.

We also have a pretty good idea of natural CO2 emissions and they simply do not account for the amount of it in the atmosphere. However when adding manmade the numbers match up.

Also do keep in mind that Exxon has known that fossil fuels are likely to lead to global warming for almost 40 years by now: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

I'm well aware of the Exxon information courtesy of SciAmerican (actually, Inside Climate News). First off, it's public information. This wasn't classified documentation hidden away. Second, those excerpts taken from Exxon documents fit a narrative for Inside Climate Science, I'd like to read the full, unredacted reports, myself. Thirdly, a lot has happened since 1977, so it's conceivable that Exxon's own research is now outdated. Skepticism always matters.

I'm also not going to refute the possibility that Exxon is spending untold millions into funding climate skeptics for their own personal gain. I don't support that position, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Let me ask you a scientific/philosophical question: what caused the previous ice age 11,000 years ago to end?

When he says "scientific consensus" he doesn't mean that everyone voted, it means that people studied the data and arrived at similar conclusions. To give you a crude analogy if you, me and Spectre all look at a Corvette and say "yep it's a Corvette" we have reached a consensus based on observation, we didn't just decide it was a Corvette when it was really a Mustang.

False equivalency. He explicitly quotes scientists as coming to a consensus together, not independently studying the available data and then reaching similar conclusions. My point here is science is not democratic. Just because 97% (possibly) believe one thing, doesn't make it true. Not if the evidence is lacking.

Citation needed.

On reviewing my previous comment that led to your comment, I have to retract that statement. Firecat is correct in that large bodies of international scientists have reached this conclusion. I just contend that consensus doesn't necessarily make it true.

Here's an example of the growing exclamation of scientists contending the publically accepted narrative.

http://co2coalition.org/about/members-of-the-co2-coalition/#1463141129384-7f5a61e6-ada7

Look at the board and advisory members' credentials. Three of the 21 have ties to Exxon or other private corporations, but all the others are died-in-the-wool scientists covering a large swath of the natural scientists. They even have the founding member of Greenpeace on the advisory.

 

[Interrobang]

With all that science talk, I just wanted to share a conversation I had recently with a younger scientists. For context, I have a background in science but have left it behind long ago.

In the context of the recent (and future) science marches he was complaining about science being so political. He (basically) said he just wanted to do his research and not bother with politics. To which I replied that he was an Idiot. Politics, society and science are intertwined. There is no separating that to start with.
Someone who does research ("to examine closely" or "to seek") and succeeds at it, will always produce something that is also political. Science can confirm a standpoint that is held - or negate it. Scientific results can support a political view - or counter it.
Research in Psychology may change our school system or show us paths to fighting addictions. Research in medicine may challenge political positions on stuff like health care, contraceptives or even the way hospitals are run. Research in AI will pretty much determine how we live in the next decades as research in the computer sciences in the last decades has perhaps bought on the biggest changes to our lives and politics in modern times. I could go on ... but the important bit to understand is that if you explore and in consequence you discover something (doesn't matter what field), you change stuff in society. And that's where politics come in. There is no hiding from that ... as a scientist doing research in your field you will find yourself on one side of a political argument at one point. Even when your research is chairs. At some point there is a political decision about some chairs (yeah, let's make this ridiculous). Whether to spend x-money on chair type Y or Z. Your research says that chair type Z is so much better because makes people live 5 years longer and always walk around with a smile on your face ... but sadly chair type Z is also 2 cent more expensive and the chairs are for the DMV, which everyone hates. Now the political party A says that the happy, smiley chair type Z is worth the 2 cents because this may even make the people working at the DMV less miserable thus making everyone's life better, while political party B is very concerned with the budget and also thinks people live too long these days. And then suddenly you are on CNN having to defend your research (and chair type Z) and are thus opposing an entire political party by just doing science. Then you get hate-mail, are discredited by the supporters of the that political party, people are talking about cutting funding to your department ... all because you thought chairology was an interesting field of research after school? No, because you decided to do research, because you wanted to do science. You engaged in politics the moment you put that (often metaphorical) lab coat on ...

You know, we always think that people like Galileo as people who fought against the church - but they challenged society as a whole at the time in the name of progress and this means challenging politics. The results that Science produces are always political. It may not always be that big of revolution - but even producing results in an area that may not seem important can change the way we see things in that area and thus find itself in the political debate.

 

[prizrak]

Let me ask you a scientific/philosophical question: what caused the previous ice age 11,000 years ago to end?

To be more serious there is no question on whether climate has it's own cycle driven by a whole mess of different variables. The question is have we ever seen that kind of rate of change and what changed since then.

False equivalency. He explicitly quotes scientists as coming to a consensus together, not independently studying the available data and then reaching similar conclusions. My point here is science is not democratic. Just because 97% (possibly) believe one thing, doesn't make it true. Not if the evidence is lacking.

That's a fair point and I agree with that.

 

[Firecat]

Whaddaya mean, generally well educated?

lol well I don't know specifics about you or your background

Quote Originally Posted by Real Clear Investigations
When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, [William] Happer, [professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences] said: ?Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn?t toe the alarmists? company line.?

That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers. Nevertheless, new organizations like the CO2 Coalition, founded in 2015, suggest the debate is more evenly matched intellectually than is commonly portrayed. In addition to Happer, the CO2 Coalition?s initial members include scholars with ties to world-class institutions like MIT, Harvard and Rockefeller University. The coalition also features members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorology Society, along with policy experts from the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and Tufts University?s Fletcher School.

William Happer, long-time chairman of Marshall Institute which was largely funded by oil money and is a conservative think-tank so definitely a bias exists within.

I'm not familiar with Co2 Coalition. But their website home page says "Carbon Dioxide is Essential for life" behind a photo of a family on a picnic. They are arguing this....

More carbon dioxide levels will help everyone, including future generations of our families. CO2 is the essential food for land-based plants. The Earth?s biosphere has experienced a relative CO2 famine for millions of years, and the recent increase in CO2 levels has had a measurable, positive effect on plant life. Future CO2 increases will boost farm productivity, improve drought resistance, bolster food security and help create a greener, lusher planet.

I just can't take them seriously. Yes, CO2 is essential for life and i'm sure plants would thrive with more CO2.....but that doesn't make it good for the planet and certainly does not negate the concerns with global warming/climate change.

Let me ask you a scientific/philosophical question: what caused the previous ice age 11,000 years ago to end?

We are in an ice age right now, and I'm pretty sure the last "ice age" before this was over 2 million years ago. If you're referring to the last glacial period of this current ice age, yes the Earth has been heating and cooling since (literally) forever. This is the argument Bill Nye (in that original video I posted) was trying to make. What was happening on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years is happening a lot sooner.

 

[JimCorrigan]

William Happer, long-time chairman of Marshall Institute which was largely funded by oil money and is a conservative think-tank so definitely a bias exists within.

Entirely plausible, but here's why that alone shouldn't have you automatically dismiss his opinions. Funding from major corporations or government is almost inevitable in sciences. Nearly all of my colleaguesn who conduct clinical research or who give lectures have funding if some sort from a Big Pharma. Is it possible that gives them a blind spot towards their own data? Yes. Does it guarantee that all of them cannot maintain some objectivity? No.

I'm not familiar with Co2 Coalition. But their website home page says "Carbon Dioxide is Essential for life" behind a photo of a family on a picnic. They are arguing this....

I just can't take them seriously. Yes, CO2 is essential for life and i'm sure plants would thrive with more CO2.....but that doesn't make it good for the planet and certainly does not negate the concerns with global warming/climate change.

Well, it is set up for lay people to understand. Again, before dismissing them, reading the numerous links of scientific articles is worth a shot.

We are in an ice age right now, and I'm pretty sure the last "ice age" before this was over 2 million years ago. If you're referring to the last glacial period of this current ice age, yes the Earth has been heating and cooling since (literally) forever. This is the argument Bill Nye (in that original video I posted) was trying to make. What was happening on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years is happening a lot sooner.

We were living in a "mini" ice age over 40 years ago. Also, the last true ice age was 11,000 years ago, not 2 million.

- - - Updated - - -

With all that science talk, I just wanted to share a conversation I had recently with a younger scientists. For context, I have a background in science but have left it behind long ago.

In the context of the recent (and future) science marches he was complaining about science being so political. He (basically) said he just wanted to do his research and not bother with politics. To which I replied that he was an Idiot. Politics, society and science are intertwined. There is no separating that to start with.
Someone who does research ("to examine closely" or "to seek") and succeeds at it, will always produce something that is also political. Science can confirm a standpoint that is held - or negate it. Scientific results can support a political view - or counter it.
Research in Psychology may change our school system or show us paths to fighting addictions. Research in medicine may challenge political positions on stuff like health care, contraceptives or even the way hospitals are run. Research in AI will pretty much determine how we live in the next decades as research in the computer sciences in the last decades has perhaps bought on the biggest changes to our lives and politics in modern times. I could go on ... but the important bit to understand is that if you explore and in consequence you discover something (doesn't matter what field), you change stuff in society. And that's where politics come in. There is no hiding from that ... as a scientist doing research in your field you will find yourself on one side of a political argument at one point. Even when your research is chairs. At some point there is a political decision about some chairs (yeah, let's make this ridiculous). Whether to spend x-money on chair type Y or Z. Your research says that chair type Z is so much better because makes people live 5 years longer and always walk around with a smile on your face ... but sadly chair type Z is also 2 cent more expensive and the chairs are for the DMV, which everyone hates. Now the political party A says that the happy, smiley chair type Z is worth the 2 cents because this may even make the people working at the DMV less miserable thus making everyone's life better, while political party B is very concerned with the budget and also thinks people live too long these days. And then suddenly you are on CNN having to defend your research (and chair type Z) and are thus opposing an entire political party by just doing science. Then you get hate-mail, are discredited by the supporters of the that political party, people are talking about cutting funding to your department ... all because you thought chairology was an interesting field of research after school? No, because you decided to do research, because you wanted to do science. You engaged in politics the moment you put that (often metaphorical) lab coat on ...

You know, we always think that people like Galileo as people who fought against the church - but they challenged society as a whole at the time in the name of progress and this means challenging politics. The results that Science produces are always political. It may not always be that big of revolution - but even producing results in an area that may not seem important can change the way we see things in that area and thus find itself in the political debate.

While I think in general principles you are correct, wanting to do pure research and not have to deal with politics does not make that scientist an "idiot", it makes him an idealist. I'm sure there are other reasons you could consider them to be an idiot.

 

[prizrak]

While I think in general principles you are correct, wanting to do pure research and not have to deal with politics does not make that scientist an "idiot", it makes him an idealist. I'm sure there are other reasons you could consider them to be an idiot.

True statement, I hate to deal with the corp politics I just wanna play with servers but it's always a package deal

 

[Firecat]

Not dismissing it outright. I'll have a closer look and post thoughts on their studies later. I'm just hesitant when it comes to advocacy groups (on either side). Which is why previously I was pointing to scientific bodies, which we agreed have all agreed that man has had an impact. Individual scientists might disagree, but all scientific bodies have reached a consensus. They, presumably, are non-partisan and impartial. Studies are peer-reviewed and i think to outright disagree without strong evidence showing the contrary is bordering on ignorance. Not applying that to you, but a lot of these GOP talking heads.

We were living in a "mini" ice age over 40 years ago. Also, the last true ice age was 11,000 years ago, not 2 million.

We're using different definitions of ice age it seems. I'm using the geological one

Our current ice age which started 2.5 million years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Last glacial period within this current ice age ended 11k years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

I presume that was the setting of the Ice Age film franchise lol

 

[JimCorrigan]

Not dismissing it outright. I'll have a closer look and post thoughts on their studies later. I'm just hesitant when it comes to advocacy groups (on either side). Which is why previously I was pointing to scientific bodies, which we agreed have all agreed that man has had an impact. Individual scientists might disagree, but all scientific bodies have reached a consensus. They, presumably, are non-partisan and impartial. Studies are peer-reviewed and i think to outright disagree without strong evidence showing the contrary is bordering on ignorance. Not applying that to you, but a lot of these GOP talking heads.

Never assume anyone, even a scientist, a physician, an engineer, etc. is non-partisan or impartial. Even subconsciously, we all have our biases. The best we can do is be aware of them and not let them cloud our judgement.

As to GOP talking heads, I agree with you completely. I doubt I could ever trust a politician to make informed policy based on science. But the same then also applies to talking heads on the other side of the political aisle, as well.

Also, keeping with the current discussion

Greenpeace admits its attacks on forest products giant were non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion

In its claim, Resolute noted that Greenpeace has lobbied big Resolute paper customers, such as the Rite-Aid pharmacy chain (which printed its flyers on Resolute newsprint), encouraging them to switch suppliers, because, said Greenpeace, Resolute is a ?forest destroyer.?

?The publications? use of the word ?Forest Destroyer,? for example, is obvious rhetoric,? Greenpeace writes in its motion to dismiss the Resolute lawsuit. ?Resolute did not literally destroy an entire forest. It is of course arguable that Resolute destroyed portions of the Canadian Boreal Forest without abiding by policies and practices established by the Canadian government and the Forest Stewardship Council, but that is the point: The ?Forest Destroyer? statement cannot be proven true or false, it is merely an opinion.?

Greenpeace adds that its attacks on Resolute ?are without question non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion and at most non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole.?

Also, from a related editorial (http://business.financialpost.com/f...what-they-say-but-they-want-your-money-anyway)

After enduring a years-long campaign where Greenpeace publicly trashed Resolute?s reputation and intimidated its customers into cancelling their paper-supply contracts, the Montreal-based forestry company began fighting back with lawyers, alleging Greenpeace is a ?global fraud? that ?duped? its donors with ?materially false and misleading claims.? In the U.S., Resolute sued using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which was both a strikingly menacing tactic and an absolutely inspired idea. Since a racketeering suit can bring triple damages, and since Resolute claims Greenpeace?s harassment campaign has cost it upwards of $100 million, the gravity of the threat has motivated Greenpeace to come up with the best defence it can muster.

Turns out that includes telling the court that its claims about Resolute being ?forest destroyers,? responsible for a ?caribou death spiral and extinction? and myriad other vilifications, were all just marketing hype. ?The challenged statements are no more than opinion based on disclosed facts,? Greenpeace International?s lawyers explained in their latest motion to dismiss the RICO suit. Greenpeace, like anyone protected by constitutional free speech, will ?often use forceful language to make their point. They do not hew to strict literalisms or scientific precision, but regularly use words ?in a loose, figurative sense? to express ?strong disagreement,? and attack their intellectual opponents through ?rhetorical hyperbole? or ?vigorous epithet(s).??

Calling Resolute ?forest destroyers,? the lawyers continue, doesn?t have to mean that the company is actually ?destroying Canada?s boreal forest? as Greenpeace?s campaign literature claimed. Rather, the motion explains, it ?can be describing figurative, rather than literal destruction.? What court could possibly disprove that Resolute is destroying ?figurative? forests, since by definition, those forests don?t actually exist?

More..

Organizations don?t naturally benefit from speech rights, after all. Resolute certainly doesn?t. Whether communicating to investors, the community or to customers, a ring-fence of regulations, civil claims and industry standards make sure companies carefully watch what they say. Spreading fictions about their products? benefits, its risks, or their sales figures or financial situation if they?re publicly traded, can get a corporation fined, sued and sanctioned, while its officials face career-ending censure if not retributive fines and jail time.

Meanwhile, activist NGOs like Greenpeace have enjoyed the freedom to spread exaggerations, deceptions and outright lies in ways that the resource companies they target could never get away with, all to raise money from credulous donors who are victimized, too, fooled by ?rhetorical hyperbole? into worrying that things they genuinely care about, like, say, the boreal forest, are really being destroyed. Stressing out compassionate people with overwrought scare tactics is a squalid and ghoulish trade, but, hey, it keeps those cheques coming in.

My point in all of this, sadly, is trust no one. Be skeptical of everyone, and I do mean everyone. Everyone has skin in the game, and while individuals may have noble intent, the organizations that stem from those intents often lose their nobility in the process of trying to stay relevant. On any side of the political spectrum.

- - - Updated - - -

We're using different definitions of ice age it seems. I'm using the geological one

Our current ice age which started 2.5 million years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Last glacial period within this current ice age ended 11k years ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

As your own links show, the last ice age ended just over 11,000/nearly 12,000 years ago.

Also, screw Wikipedia.

http://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

https://nature.ca/notebooks/english/iceage.htm

 

[prizrak]

Never assume anyone, even a scientist, a physician, an engineer, etc. is non-partisan or impartial. Even subconsciously, we all have our biases. The best we can do is be aware of them and not let them cloud our judgement.
My point in all of this, sadly, is trust no one. Be skeptical of everyone, and I do mean everyone. Everyone has skin in the game, and while individuals may have noble intent, the organizations that stem from those intents often lose their nobility in the process of trying to stay relevant. On any side of the political spectrum.

Here is my very simple thought on the subject. There is absolutely no risk in being environmentally conscious and decreasing the amount of harmful emissions that our industries produce. There is however a risk to doing nothing, unfortunately our leaders are using the lack of complete certainty on the subject as an excuse to do just that. As a result the only way forward is to act as if the science is settled and that the outcomes would be bad for our societies.

 

[JimCorrigan]

Here is my very simple thought on the subject. There is absolutely no risk in being environmentally conscious and decreasing the amount of harmful emissions that our industries produce. There is however a risk to doing nothing, unfortunately our leaders are using the lack of complete certainty on the subject as an excuse to do just that. As a result the only way forward is to act as if the science is settled and that the outcomes would be bad for our societies.

I have no qualms with pushing forward research into alternate sources of energy and attempting to be less wasteful. It's when policy gets ahead of the science (for their own goals, aka carbon taxation) that I get suspicious.

Again, the idea is noble. It's the execution of which I find dubious.

 

[Firecat]

As your own links show, the last ice age ended just over 11,000/nearly 12,000 years ago.

Also, screw Wikipedia.

http://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

https://nature.ca/notebooks/english/iceage.htm

Not to beat a dead horse....but I stand by what I stated. "ice age" seems to have different definitions. From your last link...

The Earth is in an ice age now. It started about 2 million years ago and is known as the Quaternary Period.

Although commonly used, I think its confusing to refer to the periods of cooling as ice ages and prefer the term glacial period. Because we are in an ice age that began 2.5 million years and it hasn't ended, we are in an interglacial period.

Again, doesn't particular matter in terms of this discussion but just a point of clarification.

--------

Back to the discussion, let me ask this. What will it take for you to acknowledge what every scientific body has already agreed upon?

 

[JimCorrigan]

Not to beat a dead horse....but I stand by what I stated. "ice age" seems to have different definitions. From your last link...

I thought we had a beating dead horse smiley....

Anyhow, from that same link

We are currently enjoying a warm interval: our climate represents an interglacial period that began about 10 000 years ago. The preceding glacial period lasted about 80 000 years.

Although commonly used, I think its confusing to refer to the periods of cooling as ice ages and prefer the term glacial period. Because we are in an ice age that began 2.5 million years and it hasn't ended, we are in an interglacial period.

The nomenclature can be confusing, I agree.

What will it take for you to acknowledge what every scientific body has already agreed upon?

I need to be convinced of more than just a political agenda, and I don't know right this moment how you (in the general sense) can do that. I could just as easily ask you what will it take to acknowledge the concerns raised by a minority of expert scientists in the field?

 

[Firecat]

I need to be convinced of more than just a political agenda, and I don't know right this moment how you (in the general sense) can do that. I could just as easily ask you what will it take to acknowledge the concerns raised by a minority of expert scientists in the field?

What is the political agenda again? That every single scientific body and, I know you hate the number, 97% of climate scientists are pushing this notion for funding?