cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

All science a conspiracy?

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-09-the-rights-climate-denialism-is-part-of-something-much-large...

 

SNIP:

 

For one thing, if it's true that the world's scientists are capable of deception and collusion on this scale, a lot more than climate change is in doubt. These same institutions have told us what we know about health and disease, species and ecosystems, energy and biochemistry. If they are corrupt, we have to consider whether any of the knowledge they've generated is trustworthy. We could be operating our medical facilities, economies, and technologies on faulty theories. We might not know anything! Here we are hip-deep in postmodernism and it came from the right, not the left academics they hate.

54 Replies
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: All science a conspiracy?

Interesting read and this am I heard parts of a panel discussing the way the US right has used hate and fear of others to get votes and relating it to our right wing in Canada and how they are picking up those patterns.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: All science a conspiracy?

Hi Guys,

 

Yeah, the squirrels have gotten out of the pen and are all over the woods. They aren't coming back.

 

I think it is just a symptom of how people deal with increasing complexity and diminshing returns from that complexity. It is understandable that we all are inclined to fall back on some basic belief system that aligns with our sense of our own identity. And of course those inclinations will be exploited by interests that see advantage in it.

 

Here's a link to a decent interview with Joseph Tainter. Author of The Collapse of Complex Societies."  Background, Jim Puplava is a financial guy and a big Peak Oiler (as I am) and he probably leads the discussion a little bit in that direction. He has his limits but I have always appreciated his willingness to interview some really interesting guests.

 

Something here for people on all sides of the debate- the history of fiscal limitations and monetary debasement as well as resource depletion, environmental degradation.

 

http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/in-depth/joseph-tainter-phd/the-collapse-of-c...

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: All science a conspiracy?

I don't think all science is a conspiracy but I believe the man made global warming science is. That is why they have changed the name to climate change. Big Algore telling us the world is going to melt and the oceans are going to rise 20 feet is the only fear mongering going on, not the stuff the "deniers" are putting out.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: All science a conspiracy?

Anyone with a bit of education and even the slightest bit of logic should instantly recognize the flaw in the reasoning of your paragraph snip.

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: All science a conspiracy?

I would also agree not all science is a conspiracy. Last time I checked Gore was no scientist but spewed his GW garbage probably to line his pockets with cash. I think his deal was more a belief of his with no facts to back most of it up. I am suprised anyone would buy into what he said anyway , beings he is a politician and everyone knows politicians lie.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: All science a conspiracy?

The squirrels that I mention most definitely include plenty of left wing rodents as well. Lots of counterproductive "religiously" derived beliefs there also.

 

At the visceral level that many people approach climate change from, I personally don't have a big problem imagining that the release of several million years of sequestered carbon annually could be having an impact on the planet.

 

I also don't think the huge majority of the scientific community which holds some level of belief in man made climate change is engaged in a conspiracy.

 

 I do think that the way scientists compete for government and NGO funding for their work is highly dependent on politics

 and fundamentally flawed. The Al Gore thing is obviously very personal to you and actually I share a degree of distrust for him. I think he found a very profitable schtick as a shill for interests on that side of the debate and probably hasn't contributed a lot that is useful.

 

We are going to burn all the petroleum we can afford and then some (coal may be a slightly differerent question) - sorry folks, get over it and if we are on the inexorable road to environmental catastrophe, well, it has been nice knowing you.  We won't know until after the fact when the energy and capital returns on that extraction have turned negative and when we do we are already well on the way to being permanently and totally screwed.

 

That petroleum is a one time gift from God (literally or metaphorically, as you wish) and if we are going to sustain anything close to 6 billion people on this planet and a billion or more at a very high standard of living, we are going to have to invest a part of that one time endowment in creating something that is sustainable and the central component is some sort(s) of nondepleting, high density scaleable energy source.

 

It really makes me sick to think that we blew about 50% of our huge national oil endowment, quite literally, out the radiators and tailpipes of automobiles (SWAG- our oil is 80% gone, IC engines are about 20% efficient). We had better things to do with that stuff- petrochemicals, fertilizers etc.

 

But we are where we are. As Tainter says in the linked interview, we need to have an adult conversation about this and he goes on to say that if we can create new energy sources then we have a reasonable chance of surviving as an intact society.

 

Back to the original premise- it seems to me that we are, if anything, moving away from the likelihood of that discussion happening as complexity begets squirreliness.

 

FWIW, h

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re:Gore and facts

I have never seen Gore's film or read much about him or his pronouncements but I sometimes get the idea that some people want to completely eliminate any possibility of Global Warming because Gore said it was so.

I think there is lots of evidence that the earth is warming.

I think there are lots of scientists who are coming up with what they believe to be evidence of it being caused by our (man's) use of carbon fuels. I have no evidence to argue against them.

There appears to be lots of evidence to back up the GW and man's cause of such.

I therefore would never use words like 'the garbage of global warming'.

We may not be able to know that we as a species caused it with out any doubts but so far the evidence leans that way.

Do a search and see what you turn up as genuine evidence, scientific evidence, backed up by studies and learned people for either side of the argument.

Go at it with an open mind not looking for proof for either side of the argument and see what you find.

An interesting link I just came across for you to start with

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: Re:Gore and facts

I dont disagree  with what you said but for as much info on man made global warming there is about as much against it. I think its one of those subjects where they get the information that will support there cause. THe earth has went through cycles way before we came along and will continue to, With us burning fossil fuels it might excelerate some of these cycles.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re:If they think mankind cannot have an impact on nature

They only need to look at DDT and the impact that had on the birds in nature. When DDT was banned the birds started to regain their numbers.

 

If Ronald Reagan had made the global warming claims he would be nominated for saint hood.