HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
Blogs
Captain Hybrid

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

Page 1 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 4/54  >  >>
William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
William K.   10/22/2013 12:23:29 AM
NO RATINGS
The "them" was a collection of people who called themselves scientits, and they were writing in Scientific American, amongst other publications, about 30 years ago. They were somehow organized, but I did not pay much attention because back then it was more polite to just ignore the nuts spouting off. Theirs was an attitude shared by many of the vocal acedemic community, who were also quite loud on the topic.

And it seems that you are not aware of a fairly common propoganda trick of associating things not related.

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
CharlesM   10/21/2013 3:28:34 PM
NO RATINGS
One question that I have asked repeatedly is that aren't these people trumpeting so very loudly about the global climate change the same folks who for many years were very nasty in their criticism of the USA and other countries for having a standard of living that was so much higher than a lot of the rest of the world?

No, but I don't even remember "these people." Who were they? Climate scientists? Tell us about "them," if you think it's important to the topic.

Am I the only one who can recall the very btter diatribes about how evil Americans were because we lived so much better than many others?

Another non sequitur. I could ask for examples, but how would it be relevant to the science? Can't you debate climate science on its own terms, without ad hominem personal attacks? That's no way to win a debate. Are you even a scientist or engineer?!

Has anybody considered that they have finally found a way to attach something that was at least sort of believable to their assiertions that our standard of living and our level of personal freedom "must be brought into line with the rest of the world"?

Have you? If you're going to make ugly accusations, maybe you need to name names and we'll see who's really on both sides.

I am suggesting that a hidden personal agenda could be a real factor in the interpretation of the data. After all, every one of us knows that the interpretation of data can be subject to bias. That is nothing new.

So you're saying you can't dispute climate science other than to impugn the character and motives of climate scientists, and to conjure up any doubts, prejudice, and fears that you can possibly claw onto. That is nothing new.

Maybe you have a personal agenda due to your addiction to cheap polluting fossil fuels and due to irrational fears that you might have to change your lifestyle to something more responsible and sustainable. That is nothing new.

Maybe that's part of the hidden agenda of the 16 scientists who are not-so-distinguished in the specific field of climate science, but nonetheless got a climate science contrarian letter printed in a known denialist publication. That is nothing new.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
William K.   10/20/2013 9:37:17 PM
NO RATINGS
One question that I have asked repeatedly is that aren't these people trumpeting so very loudly about the global climate change the same folks who for many years were very nasty in their criticism of the USA and other countries for having a standard of living that was so much higher than a lot of the rest of the world? Am I the only one who can recall the very btter diatribes about how evil Americans were because we lived so much better than many others? Has anybody considered that they have finally found a way to attach something that was at least sort of believable to their assiertions that our standard of living and our level of personal freedom "must be brought into line with the rest of the world"? 

I am suggesting that a hidden personal agenda could be a real factor in the interpretation of the data. After all, every one of us knows that the interpretation of data can be subject to bias. That is nothing new. 

Michael 162
User Rank
Iron
Re: Global Warming
Michael 162   10/20/2013 9:36:55 AM
NO RATINGS
Excellent analysis !

Mbrazil
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
Mbrazil   10/18/2013 8:09:12 AM
Are the Sketpics Right?

Looking at overwhelming research results, there is a simple answer....

NO

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
CharlesM   10/17/2013 6:04:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Where is the science-based dissent?  But let's start with the frequent DN Daily email that includes the following teaser for this post:

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?
Is the science of global warming incontrovertible? Sixteen distinguished scientists say no. CONTINUE READING

Tell us: Does this not suggest a verdict?

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Re: Quote of the Day
CharlesM   10/17/2013 5:53:27 PM
UBM is actually worse than USA Today and other publications mentioned in the link I just posted in another comment (here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/16/usa_today_oped_giving_air_time_to_deniers.html). Those publications, as Fox News has even done, at least have posted views on "both sides," even if one side is dangersously false. I've never seen a post on UBM that points out, for example, that 255 even more distinguished scientists, actual climate scientists!, responded to this infamous letter published in the Wall Street Journal, but the WSJ wouldn't publish that response.  UBM is in company with the denialist WSJ in this regard.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/30/414277/wsj-publishes-op-ed-from-16-climate-deniers-refused-letter-from-255-top-scientists/

Excerpt:

The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation's pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn't publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

danharres
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
danharres   10/17/2013 5:50:36 PM
NO RATINGS
CharlesM,

What exactly in the article do you object to?  It seems fairly innocuous, simply asking whether there might be room for some dissent on this topic.

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Fix this deceitful post, UBM!
CharlesM   10/17/2013 5:35:50 PM
Haven't there been enough fact-based articles in DN over the last few years to allow UBM to permanently retire this dangerously ignorant piece from inclusion in the DN Daily that keeps being sent out in email, as it was again today? I know controversy is good for web traffic, but it seems like UBM would ultimately care about its credibility eroding every time this piece gets seen.

Please read this view about the policies that some media organizations are finally starting to adopt, and Mr. Murray, please consider a mea culpa update to finally correct this abomination of journalism: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/16/usa_today_oped_giving_air_time_to_deniers.html

danharres
User Rank
Silver
Re: Quote of the Day
danharres   10/17/2013 4:03:39 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks, TR3.

<<  <  Page 4/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Captain Hybrid
A pure electric car with a lithium-ion battery can lose as much as 57% of its range when the temperature dips and 33% when the mercury rises, a new AAA study says.
Volkswagen AG is developing a lithium-air battery that could triple the range of its electric cars, but industry experts believe it could be a long time before that chemistry is ready for production vehicles.
After reading all the recent news reports about Tesla Motorsí proposed ďGigafactory,Ē itís hard not to wonder about the future of battery-electric cars, and how low their costs can really go.
Californiaís plan to mandate an electric vehicle market isnít the first such undertaking and certainly wonít be the last. But as the Golden State ratchets up for its next big step toward zero-emission vehicle status in 2018, it might be wise to consider a bit of history.
Tesla Motors plans to build a huge battery factory in hopes of making electric cars affordable for the general public.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service