I am shocked to see this thread is still going. An earlier poster seemed surprised that it had devolved into people engaging in progressively energetic attempts to convince others they were wrong. Isn't that what happens to most threads on BITOG? It's as though civil discourse is dead.
"Science in America" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Thread starter surfstar
- Start date
- Status
Since my teen years and likely before that, people that supposedly were experts, scientists or whatever have been talking up this earth changes. It used to be the new ice age was coming, then global warming. Now it's climate change and in particular, HICC which stands for human-induced climate change.
It is all baloney. I'm almost 61 and the same spiel is being pushed. Carbon taxes are the answer is what we hear lately. Yep, tax something you cannot see, the ultimate in taxes.
Live your life. Sure, don't try to pollute if you can, but forget about these alarmists. They are in it for one reason and that is $ ¥ £ €.
It is all baloney. I'm almost 61 and the same spiel is being pushed. Carbon taxes are the answer is what we hear lately. Yep, tax something you cannot see, the ultimate in taxes.
Live your life. Sure, don't try to pollute if you can, but forget about these alarmists. They are in it for one reason and that is $ ¥ £ €.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Here is the abstract of the paper which you apparently ignored because it shows no agreement from Climate Modeling and precipitation predictions:
It is quite easy to ignore a "paper" from this place "Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets." - that is their self-description. Its hard to see their "facts" when so deeply clouded by their politics.
Here are some other's thoughts on them:
A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:
"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."[1]
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability:
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.
and
"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2]:233–34[3] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[4][5] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[6] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7]"
Why am I fixated on this?
You bring them up as a CREDIBLE source, to "prove" your opinion.
As pointed out above, one of our sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Luckily for the denyers, the climate is warming, as it appears they wear no clothes.
Here is the abstract of the paper which you apparently ignored because it shows no agreement from Climate Modeling and precipitation predictions:
It is quite easy to ignore a "paper" from this place "Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets." - that is their self-description. Its hard to see their "facts" when so deeply clouded by their politics.
Here are some other's thoughts on them:
A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:
"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."[1]
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability:
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.
and
"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2]:233–34[3] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[4][5] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[6] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7]"
Why am I fixated on this?
You bring them up as a CREDIBLE source, to "prove" your opinion.
As pointed out above, one of our sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Luckily for the denyers, the climate is warming, as it appears they wear no clothes.
The OP and video is not only about climate change, it is about the lack of scientific literacy in our modern American society.
THAT is what is truly alarming. Climate change is but one of the examples that was brought up and easily fixated on for many here.
What of the other ones?
I'm quick to point out the irony to certain friends who follow scientific literature with regards to climate, but NOT vaccines and GMOs. The selective hypocrisy is lost on them.
You can't pick and choose which part of science you believe. As NDGT famously says:
"Science doesn't care what you believe."
That is the point of the video to drive home. Do not loose it in our regurgitated climate change debate (nothing new from either side).
THAT is what is truly alarming. Climate change is but one of the examples that was brought up and easily fixated on for many here.
What of the other ones?
I'm quick to point out the irony to certain friends who follow scientific literature with regards to climate, but NOT vaccines and GMOs. The selective hypocrisy is lost on them.
You can't pick and choose which part of science you believe. As NDGT famously says:
"Science doesn't care what you believe."
That is the point of the video to drive home. Do not loose it in our regurgitated climate change debate (nothing new from either side).
Originally Posted By: surfstar
The OP and video is not only about climate change, it is about the lack of scientific literacy in our modern American society.
THAT is what is truly alarming. Climate change is but one of the examples that was brought up and easily fixated on for many here.
What of the other ones?
I'm quick to point out the irony to certain friends who follow scientific literature with regards to climate, but NOT vaccines and GMOs. The selective hypocrisy is lost on them.
You can't pick and choose which part of science you believe. As NDGT famously says:
"Science doesn't care what you believe."
That is the point of the video to drive home. Do not loose it in our regurgitated climate change debate (nothing new from either side).
regarding climate change...this is an automotive blog after all lol
vaccines and GMO's have their own special kind of baggage.
While I am definitely not an antivaxxer type I can see where those people are coming from and one of the problems that comes up is the hugely negative reaction you get from people when you simply bring up questions about it rather than blindly going along. Many of us humans do not take kindly to being 'forced' to do anything.
I would probably include flu shot along with vaccine stuff. A surprising number of medical professionals (1 in 5 here at my hospital btw) do not get flu shots despite them being all but mandatory for working here.
GMO's problem comes from evils (real and perceived) revolving around Monsanto and then cascades down from there. Humans have been manipulating plants and animals for millenia.
The OP and video is not only about climate change, it is about the lack of scientific literacy in our modern American society.
THAT is what is truly alarming. Climate change is but one of the examples that was brought up and easily fixated on for many here.
What of the other ones?
I'm quick to point out the irony to certain friends who follow scientific literature with regards to climate, but NOT vaccines and GMOs. The selective hypocrisy is lost on them.
You can't pick and choose which part of science you believe. As NDGT famously says:
"Science doesn't care what you believe."
That is the point of the video to drive home. Do not loose it in our regurgitated climate change debate (nothing new from either side).
regarding climate change...this is an automotive blog after all lol
vaccines and GMO's have their own special kind of baggage.
While I am definitely not an antivaxxer type I can see where those people are coming from and one of the problems that comes up is the hugely negative reaction you get from people when you simply bring up questions about it rather than blindly going along. Many of us humans do not take kindly to being 'forced' to do anything.
I would probably include flu shot along with vaccine stuff. A surprising number of medical professionals (1 in 5 here at my hospital btw) do not get flu shots despite them being all but mandatory for working here.
GMO's problem comes from evils (real and perceived) revolving around Monsanto and then cascades down from there. Humans have been manipulating plants and animals for millenia.
Science is off topic on this board. He is right of course.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But you're okay with The Heartland Institute, as a source of facts?
Lets see Heartland or National Academy of Sciences...Heartland or National Academy of Sciences...Gosh I just don't know who to believe!
I have attempted to read denier publications...but honestly as an Engineer its just to paijnful to read the propaganda. (in my view).
But as a practical matter..nothing will get done bc its too expensive (today) to address. Its like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Its at the very least very least entertaioning. And at the age of 71 as a practical matter it won't hurt me. Naturally I am sad for my offspring.
But you're okay with The Heartland Institute, as a source of facts?
Lets see Heartland or National Academy of Sciences...Heartland or National Academy of Sciences...Gosh I just don't know who to believe!
I have attempted to read denier publications...but honestly as an Engineer its just to paijnful to read the propaganda. (in my view).
But as a practical matter..nothing will get done bc its too expensive (today) to address. Its like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Its at the very least very least entertaioning. And at the age of 71 as a practical matter it won't hurt me. Naturally I am sad for my offspring.
Last edited:
Didn't some of the climate change scientists make a petition to start arresting climate change deniers? Yeah, that's how science works.
When billions upon billions of dollars are at stake, all bets are off.
When billions upon billions of dollars are at stake, all bets are off.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Didn't some of the climate change scientists make a petition to start arresting climate change deniers? Yeah, that's how science works.
When billions upon billions of dollars are at stake, all bets are off.
Yup.
I want them to explain how the Earth warmed and cooled before man walked on it and how those same effects could not apply today. Remember - NA was once glacier covered and it warmed up well before man.
And then how when you overlay the Earth's total population on that "climate change graph" you see that as population rises so does the temperature. Maybe, just maybe we are packing too many on the Earth and we should encourage people to have LESS kids vs MORE.
Didn't some of the climate change scientists make a petition to start arresting climate change deniers? Yeah, that's how science works.
When billions upon billions of dollars are at stake, all bets are off.
Yup.
I want them to explain how the Earth warmed and cooled before man walked on it and how those same effects could not apply today. Remember - NA was once glacier covered and it warmed up well before man.
And then how when you overlay the Earth's total population on that "climate change graph" you see that as population rises so does the temperature. Maybe, just maybe we are packing too many on the Earth and we should encourage people to have LESS kids vs MORE.
- Status
