All in the best possible taste?
Posted 04 May 2012 - 14:33
I rank it alongside the appalling "no pressure" film by the 10:10 campaign in terms of Great Climate Debate PR Disasters.
Cheers - John
Posted 05 May 2012 - 02:26
As this is a chat forum and the position is a possible vaild pov, sure it fits here... As to the intent, they leave out the 30% of the non-fringe world leaders; but, that is just worrying over the price of coffee in Costa Rica. So how do they justify villifying known data, of course by demonstrating how few marbles they have in their collective...
At one point there could have been some good from that group; however, over the last three years the garbage that passes for intellgence or the lack of critical thinking is clearly detracting from their validity as a representative of any intellgent, much less a conservative, group. There in lies a basic problem, to be so public and yet so disconnected from the facts is scary enough; but, too then misrepresent facts in an attempt to "slander" those with opposing pov is just plain dirty politics, Muck Raking at it best. Yellow journalism from 100 ya has returned, only this time it is ALL fiction... (or better yet: only this time its the corporations attacking the lttle guy, rather then the corporations being gutted by their own dubious practices...)
Posted 05 May 2012 - 06:33
Even over at WUWT the majority of the members have reportedly condemned this campaign which - incidentally - I understand Heartland to have now pulled the plug on. A bit late though as the story has gone viral!
Cheers - John
Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:50
Many are beginning to realize how close a line they are walking in relation to the reactionary far right of Fascism. Though many will tell you it is not that bad, in essence it is. Selfishness when taken to extremes is very similar. When we take actions with disregard for those who are under different circumstances, it is little different then stereotyping and racism. The only difference is rather then picking out a specific ethnic difference in this case it is an economic one.
When push comes to shove and they wake up to smell the coffee it may be too late. We are all interdependent, you can only buy off so many elections before the injustice is recognized... As to the old; "If you are not for me then you are against me", stuff will only play for a little while, eventually folks will realize they have been fed a pipe dream that has no basis in reality. I only hope the party comes to their senses before Jefferson spins too many times.
In the meantime, with the Liberals moving center the only way to differentiate yourself is to bend to the far right. The error is that it really is better for all to meet in the center then to become obnoxious to the point of being disbanded or the bane of the majority of the poplation. The current conservative base is in a quandry, where do you turn if your only choice is abhorrent and to vote any other way considered a disgrace? No one is asking for them to come to the other side; however, somewhere in the middle is the correct choice, we just need to find them...
As to the "Institute", reality is going to slap them in the face. Eventually their causes will be recognized for the Fascism they spout and they will become the "KKK" of the 21st century. It really is too bad they are going to take the GOP down with them..., as with all selfishness you have to end up face down in the gutter before you can pick yourself up again. (I just hope it happens before the "Street Sweeper" comes through.)
Posted 05 May 2012 - 15:55
The sad bit is that a lot of the science that continues to emerge is quite fascinating, yet it gets drowned-out by all this "white noise"....
Cheers - John
#8 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 05 May 2012 - 16:51
It's rather ironic that you complain about white noise, but are quite happy to make it available to an even wider audience - go figure.
I haven't answered to any part of the article because its just not worth it. I will however happily question your motive for posting it, especially given that you complain of such articles.
The whole debate gets muddied by it and no-one takes it seriously. If you want me (my POV) to take you seriously stop highlighting all the drivel all of the time, otherwise I may think you have an agenda, especially when you talk so regularly about extremists and contrarians - you begin to sound like a conspiracist.
Posted 05 May 2012 - 18:16
Cheers - John
Posted 05 May 2012 - 18:56
Chris, I don't think you have a deep rooted religious belief that humans can do no harm to the planet because it's all God's will. And I don't think John believes billions of people will die and the planet become uninhabitable because we drive cars.
And I think we must ALL speak up against ALL extremism. And not let it sway us in any way. And make a stand. Because a lot of other people will believe the extremists if we let them - just as they believe there are going to be blizzards this weekend and May will be the coldest on record (and if it isn't then why are the Met Office being paid when they so obviously got it wrong yet again)
Posted 05 May 2012 - 19:37
A difficult one and no easy solution? But we really shouldn't be fighting amongst ourselves when I think we all agree we don't agree with the more extremist views
Posted 05 May 2012 - 20:10
We have to out the rats that hide in the darkness, poisoning us with their pests and filth, if we ever hope to eliminate the plague, (providing you do not wish to burn London to the root cellars...)
In my opinion, if we do not comment means we agree with the actions, not disagree, or have we forgotten Sir Thomas Moore's lesson. In the face of tyranny we have to take a stand, just the same as in the face of terror. To sit on the fence is to become fodder, (yes it also makes you a target; but if you stand up be counted and join eith your neighbor, it is unlikely you can be touched).
To act is to move forward; failure to grow, is failure to thrive; failure to thrive is to prepare to give up. If we learned nothing from the past it is to Never, Never, give up..., ask Churchill..., he, the military and the Allies preserved most of England and rescued most of Europe and the Pacific bordering countries, in the face of insurmountable odds.
Posted 06 May 2012 - 06:05
Cheers - John
Posted 06 May 2012 - 17:31
As I was alluding to earlier the far right arm of the conservative party extremists offer nothng more then false promises, IMHO. This villification of the liberal quarter is little different then the McCarthism of the '50s. Had the bulk of the people read and understood the litany of the "Institute", they would not have the sway they do. Instead, several prominent voices have join in, misleading the uninformed, in seach of increasing their personal power, hoping to redirect the train after its up and running. Tied in with the anger over the economics, the combination of misdirected leadership and frustration over jobs and housing has over ruled good sense.
There in lies a basic problem, each society has specific restrictions that under the right feeding can lead to discontent. Theu "squeakest wheel" needs adressing or it can errupt in violence, ignorance or failure to address the creedence or lack there-of of the extremist gives power to them, not lessen it. To resolve the issue is to examine it in the light where all povs are exposed to the cleansing action of bright sunshine. If there is insufficient support then the "problem" will get the airing necessary and everyone will get the facts once and for all. Remove the hype, the personal attacks, focusing on the facts and we find that the puzzle pieces the various povs offer do not fully support the standard of cause and effect evidence. Hence, all povs have an element of bias and error in their conclusion.
That has been my intent during my tenure, though I am human and may do a poor job of it, here we try to bring all povs to the light of day. Sometimes the points stand; but most times they don't. The reason a pov does not stand is it is based mainly on one primary driver. It is when we look at all things in proportion and effect in the real world that the causes become more clear. Certainly we can define why there may be a difference in a AGW contributor; however, unless you have clear traceable markers between cause and effect we are only guessing.
Whether you are a Physicist with two or three Doctorates or the man on the street, the requirement of evidence is the only way to be certain. When there are multiple degrees of freedom at best you can only be certain within the portion of possibilities that you have identified. Repeating others "facts" does nothing for increasing the validity of a pov. It is the clear line of evidence that validates, anything else is simply noise.
Given this, povs are abundant, it is clear that the degrees of freedom are broad and the facts are increasing. To ignore data and the links to effects is denielism, by the same token trying to link data to effects without validation is a form of fraud. To remedy that science does the best it can to find evidence, document it and relate it. The problem comes in when the conclusion does not relate well with the effects we see in the real world. Relating the evidence of effect to its cause is the battle we all fight, though some do a better job of it then others...
(PS: Sorry for the tirade, some things just get my goat, John's original post just points to one of my biggest pet peeves..., so far.)