Global Warming (yet again)

[mikeh]

Since this thread is not about God, or evolution, I will wade in.

 

Jimmy, the passage that got richard all worked up last time, and again now, shows indeed that you are one of lazy or dishonest.

 

You began your reference to Schneider's quote by saying that you had only found one side of the 'is global warming real and man-caused' debate to be willing to admit to some dishonesty. You then quote Scheider, an advocate of the affirmative answers to these questions, as admitting to some degree of dishonesty.

 

The inference that you seem to want to draw is that the negative school, by not admitting to dishonesty in its arguments, is the honest school, and therefore to be believed.

 

This is utter nonsense...

 

The louder anyone proclaims their honesty, the more sceptical I become... and experience suggests that this is the best approach.

 

Furthermore, Schneider was NOT saying that the underlying message that he wishes to convey is dishonest. He was merely pointing out the well-known truth that in the day of the sound-bite, where 'in-depth coverage' in the popular media is a 2 minute newsclip or a quarter-page editorial, it is impossible to convey all of the nuances of the current consensus thinking on such a complex topic as global warming. Simplifications must be made. And, to grab headlines, to generate attention, emphasis must be placed on the worst case scenarios.

 

He doesn't like it. it would be wonderful if the entire population read, and understood, even dumbed down publications such as Scientific American, or had subscriptions to Nature. But the majority of the electorate, in the US and Canada and, I suspect, Western Europe, have neither the education nor the interest needed to actually LEARN to think for themselves. And in a culture in which news is sold as entertainment, where networks have agendas, where the wishes of advertisers are important, sometimes an essentially honest presentation requires the ommission of fine detail, caveats, doubts, etc.

 

OTOH, it is now clear, from recently released documents, that one of the most heavily funded 'no' groups was consciously lying... that its own researchers reported, internally, that the 'yes' group was correct, and that the science was irrefutable, and yet they continued to spout lies. Even now, those at the top of that organization refuse to admit to their dishonesty.

 

Your approach... your use of the Schneider quote in the context of your earlier post, is unfortunately all too characteristic of the (usually) right wingnuts. It was and remains fundamentally dishonest... and you far too skilled with words for anyone to be able to safely infer that this was through laziness or ignorance.

[luke warm]

but he says that he's a human as well as a scientist, and will not mention any doubts he may have...

 

The Schneider quote says no such thing.

 

Schneider posits the existence of an ethical double-bind.

He states that that the solution can not be solved by any formula. He expresses a hope that he is able to be both effective and honest.

and if he can't be both? we'll try again

 

"To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination."

 

to do what? "... to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change ..."

 

"That [capture imagination, get support], of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

 

he might not have doubts, although it sounds as if he might, but he is advocating a certain course of action - scare people with simple, dramatic statements, leaving off any doubts he (they) may have

 

"This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

 

he says here that it's up to each advocate to decide the right balance, admitting that he "frequently" finds himself in an ethical bind, but he *hopes* that means being both effective and honest - however, he most certainly doesn't say he *must* be both... why is that? because he knows he can't guarantee honesty while at the same time making little mention of any doubts

 

hopefully anyone reading will go to the two previous threads and see that the scheinder quote is far from the only one, all of which point to the same thing - the furtherance of an agenda

Dual Masters from the Schools of Engineering and Management, actually...

really? i could have used you last weekend... had to replace the float in the upstairs toilet

You began your reference to Schneider's quote by saying that you had only found one side of the 'is global warming real and man-caused' debate to be willing to admit to some dishonesty. You then quote Scheider, an advocate of the affirmative answers to these questions, as admitting to some degree of dishonesty.

 

The inference that you seem to want to draw is that the negative school, by not admitting to dishonesty in its arguments, is the honest school, and therefore to be believed.

 

This is utter nonsense...

 

The louder anyone proclaims their honesty, the more sceptical I become... and experience suggests that this is the best approach..

not so... i showed quotes from advocates who are clearly espousing tactics that any objective person would label as dishonest and then ask for examples from the other side... none were forthcoming.. i never said that this other side was correct because of this, merely that one side has made obvious reference to dishonesty while the other (to my knowledge - you are free to find your own quotes) has not

 

and welcome back, i have missed your evenhanded, temperate, reasonable words

[PassedOut]

Furthermore, Schneider was NOT saying that the underlying message that he wishes to convey is dishonest. He was merely pointing out the well-known truth that in the day of the sound-bite, where 'in-depth coverage' in the popular media is a 2 minute newsclip or a quarter-page editorial, it is impossible to convey all of the nuances of the current consensus thinking on such a complex topic as global warming. Simplifications must be made. And, to grab headlines, to generate attention, emphasis must be placed on the worst case scenarios.

In fact, Schneider gave voice to the problem all intelligent people face upon deciding to (try to) be an effective communicator. We know and accept the possibility that new information could modify our understanding. But to focus on those remote possibilities instead of on the main points makes it impossible to make the main points clearly and succinctly.

 

Most people do not have the patience or inclination to hold on to the main points while delving into the barely possible exceptions. So, if you want to communicate effectively, you just don't do it. You simply assume that an intelligent listener accepts those ground rules.

[mikeh]

You began your reference to Schneider's quote by saying that you had only found one side of the 'is global warming real and man-caused' debate to be willing to admit to some dishonesty. You then quote Scheider, an advocate of the affirmative answers to these questions, as admitting to some degree of dishonesty.

 

The inference that you seem to want to draw is that the negative school, by not admitting to dishonesty in its arguments, is the honest school, and therefore to be believed.

 

This is utter nonsense...

 

The louder anyone proclaims their honesty, the more sceptical I become... and experience suggests that this is the best approach..

not so... i showed quotes from advocates who are clearly espousing tactics that any objective person would label as dishonest and then ask for examples from the other side... none were forthcoming.. i never said that this other side was correct because of this, merely that one side has made obvious reference to dishonesty while the other (to my knowledge - you are free to find your own quotes) has not

 

Are you really that disingenuous?

 

What was the purpose of showing that one side, whose opinions you are known to reject, admits to sometimes overstating matters, if not to suggest that the other side was to be preferred?

 

Were you really intending to state that the rejectionsts were dishonest BECAUSE they didn't admit to their dishonesty?

 

You do sometimes seem to write gibberish, but that is usually in the context of your religious position.

 

Anyone with any intellectual honesty must admit, on occasion, to self-doubt. Indeed, it is that honesty that is one of the hallmarks of the honest individual. Only zealots and fanatics are convinced of their own rectitude. Having and admitting to self-doubt is not the least bit equivalent to admitting error... it is admitting the possibility of error, usually while maintaining that one's position remains, based on the information available, correct, with the degree of certainty being dependent on the quality and quantity of the evidence.

 

On this basis, Schneider's quote, when read in its entirety, reveals a honest person. Do you disagree with this?

 

If you agree, then please explain why you framed your original partial quote as you did.

[jdeegan]

:P Global warming has been a matter of serious concern for a few people, at least, for the past 40 years. I first dealt with it as an employee of the world's largest oil company working with MIT scientists in 1969. The trouble is that even today after billions have been spent on research, it is still not obvious what to do.

Yes, the planet is getting warmer, but should we ride this out and adapt or spend lots of money to limit carbon emissions into the atmosphere? I think after the economic crisis is over, we will have to do something - probably lots of nuclear power - made safe enough through 21st century technology.

Some experts of note advocate efforts to drastically limit cow farts as being of vital importance. This is not going to be an easy problem to deal with, but I have utmost confidence in our scientific community to help us do the right thing.

[luke warm]

You began your reference to Schneider's quote by saying that you had only found one side of the 'is global warming real and man-caused' debate to be willing to admit to some dishonesty. You then quote Scheider, an advocate of the affirmative answers to these questions, as admitting to some degree of dishonesty.

 

The inference that you seem to want to draw is that the negative school, by not admitting to dishonesty in its arguments, is the honest school, and therefore to be believed.

 

This is utter nonsense...

 

The louder anyone proclaims their honesty, the more sceptical I become... and experience suggests that this is the best approach..

not so... i showed quotes from advocates who are clearly espousing tactics that any objective person would label as dishonest and then ask for examples from the other side... none were forthcoming.. i never said that this other side was correct because of this, merely that one side has made obvious reference to dishonesty while the other (to my knowledge - you are free to find your own quotes) has not

 

Are you really that disingenuous?

 

What was the purpose of showing that one side, whose opinions you are known to reject, admits to sometimes overstating matters, if not to suggest that the other side was to be preferred?

 

Were you really intending to state that the rejectionsts were dishonest BECAUSE they didn't admit to their dishonesty?

you seem to have the same problem dick does... the purpose was (and it's misleading to use one quote when many were provided) to give you (i use you as an example of an advocate) an opportunity to show where the other side has said things as dishonest... i'm still waiting on that

 

are you so disingenuous as to say that a person or group who admit to dishonesty are in fact *more* honest than those who don't so admit? only a lawyer (and maybe an engineer/manager) could assert that

 

in any case, do you think carbon taxes and green jobs/industries will fix everything?

[jdonn]

you seem to have the same problem dick does... the purpose was (and it's misleading to use one quote when many were provided) to give you (i use you as an example of an advocate) an opportunity to show where the other side has said things as dishonest... i'm still waiting on that

Waiting on this?

 

OTOH, it is now clear, from recently released documents, that one of the most heavily funded 'no' groups was consciously lying... that its own researchers reported, internally, that the 'yes' group was correct, and that the science was irrefutable, and yet they continued to spout lies. Even now, those at the top of that organization refuse to admit to their dishonesty.

I seem to recall a very detailed thread all about this around 2 weeks ago.

[mikeh]

It turns out that Jimmy is as much a troll, or an incredibly stupid person, and he is too articulate for that to be accurate, on this topic as on religion and other aspects of science. I find myself oscillating between laughter and outrage when I read his posts. He now characterizes candour as dishonesty, expressions of doubt as admissions of mendacity. He is as immaculate in his ignorance as he appears, at least to himself, to be invincible therein.

 

I knew I should have stayed out of it, and from now on I promise that I will not respond to any post he makes that have anything to do with science or religion...trolls by their nature are not worth debating.

 

If he ever says anything interesting about bridge, this voluntary silence won't apply.

[cherdanno]

Jimmy, assuming you don't want to troll but to constructively engage in discussion, why don't you make a contribution to this thread? That would help us understand where you are coming from.

[Winstonm]

It is impossible to reason with someone who is only interested in furthering his own ideological beliefs - truth is not part of that agenda unless it is accidental.

[PassedOut]

are you so disingenuous as to say that a person or group who admit to dishonesty are in fact *more* honest than those who don't so admit? only a lawyer (and maybe an engineer/manager) could assert that

Let you give me an example from business, where we deal with risk and uncertainty all the time.

 

To set the scene, business reports and proposals always start with a statement of the conclusion and a short summary of the information supporting that conclusion. Details follow.

 

Now suppose I get a report that strongly suggests that I need to change my business model drastically or go under. (I haven't faced this, and am no Bill Gates, but think of Bill Gates reading about the impact that the internet will have on Microsoft.)

 

Then suppose someone who knows about the first report gives me a contrary report saying that I should not change my business model, but stay the course. Of course this report would emphasize the great cost of my making the change.

 

Okay, I know that either report can be wrong. (Indeed, one of them must be wrong.) I hope that I would be able to evaluate the supporting information and make the right decision.

 

Now suppose that the author of the first report strongly believed his conclusions and put everything on the table, but privately worried that if the report turned out to be wrong he might have steered me down a needlessly costly path.

 

Suppose further that I learn that the second author not only had a very strong financial incentive to persuade me to stay the course, but concealed information that would have undermined his report's conclusion.

 

In this thread, Schneider takes the role of the first author and the Global Climate Coalition that of the second author.

 

You see no difference between the two. I see a huge chasm, and would never, never do business with the second author again.

[luke warm]

Furthermore, Schneider was NOT saying that the underlying message that he wishes to convey is dishonest. He was merely pointing out the well-known truth that in the day of the sound-bite, where 'in-depth coverage' in the popular media is a 2 minute newsclip or a quarter-page editorial, it is impossible to convey all of the nuances of the current consensus thinking on such a complex topic as global warming. Simplifications must be made. And, to grab headlines, to generate attention, emphasis must be placed on the worst case scenarios.

In fact, Schneider gave voice to the problem all intelligent people face upon deciding to (try to) be an effective communicator. We know and accept the possibility that new information could modify our understanding. But to focus on those remote possibilities instead of on the main points makes it impossible to make the main points clearly and succinctly.

 

Most people do not have the patience or inclination to hold on to the main points while delving into the barely possible exceptions. So, if you want to communicate effectively, you just don't do it. You simply assume that an intelligent listener accepts those ground rules.

that's fine, as would be a simple "who cares that he/they admit to using impact language and withholding any possible doubts?" ... but to say he isn't doing that isn't correct

It is impossible to reason with someone who is only interested in furthering his own ideological beliefs - truth is not part of that agenda unless it is accidental.

i guess it depends on the agenda, eh? i mean, i'm sure you don't think it's impossible to reason with you, and i guess the same would be true if i said something like "the roswell aliens, who the u.s. gov't didn't really meet until the hollywood faked moon landing production, gave cheney/bush advanced holographic technology that enabled cia to collapse buildings at the same time there *appeared* to be jets ... " sometimes it does appear impossible to reason with you, winston, but i'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you furthering any agenda... i'm sure you'd say you have no agenda, you're just a seeker of the truth

Jimmy, assuming you don't want to troll but to constructively engage in discussion, why don't you make a contribution to this thread? That would help us understand where you are coming from.

i've already said where i'm coming from, arend... i don't think man has caused global warming and i don't think man can cool the globe... i think proposed carbon taxes are simply all about money and will have no effect whatsoever on the climate... i do not see the need for vitriolic rants and attacks on those who disagree

[jdonn]

you seem to have the same problem dick does... the purpose was (and it's misleading to use one quote when many were provided) to give you (i use you as an example of an advocate) an opportunity to show where the other side has said things as dishonest... i'm still waiting on that

Waiting on this?

 

OTOH, it is now clear, from recently released documents, that one of the most heavily funded 'no' groups was consciously lying... that its own researchers reported, internally, that the 'yes' group was correct, and that the science was irrefutable, and yet they continued to spout lies. Even now, those at the top of that organization refuse to admit to their dishonesty.

I seem to recall a very detailed thread all about this around 2 weeks ago.

Sorry if I'm being pushy. I'm curious if you would respond to this? Do you agree that what you claim to be waiting on has already occured? I can't be bothered to find the prior thread that gave details on what Mike referred to, but I bet there are some willing volunteers around. Or even if I'm just imagining the thread, I'm sure someone can link to a news story about it.

[luke warm]

you seem to have the same problem dick does... the purpose was (and it's misleading to use one quote when many were provided) to give you (i use you as an example of an advocate) an opportunity to show where the other side has said things as dishonest... i'm still waiting on that

Waiting on this?

 

OTOH, it is now clear, from recently released documents, that one of the most heavily funded 'no' groups was consciously lying... that its own researchers reported, internally, that the 'yes' group was correct, and that the science was irrefutable, and yet they continued to spout lies. Even now, those at the top of that organization refuse to admit to their dishonesty.

I seem to recall a very detailed thread all about this around 2 weeks ago.

Sorry if I'm being pushy. I'm curious if you would respond to this? Do you agree that what you claim to be waiting on has already occured? I can't be bothered to find the prior thread that gave details on what Mike referred to, but I bet there are some willing volunteers around. Or even if I'm just imagining the thread, I'm sure someone can link to a news story about it.

what i meant was some skeptic (or group of skeptics, remember that dick posted only one quote from among many - most saying pretty much the same thing) saying words to the effect of "we need to make a media splash to make sure our side is heard, so don't mention any doubts you might have..." etc

 

if that's true, if skeptics published findings they knew to be erroneous, it would be just as bad as if advocates had done the same thing... the difference is, to me, that many advocates come right out and say that the environmental good is worth not being completely honest

[jdonn]

Ok thanks, now I understand. (Actually I'm kidding, I really don't understand that well, and I can't tell which side is sceptics and which is advocates. As far as I can still tell, you asked for something that was given a few weeks ago.)

 

It's kind of ironic that in one of my MBA classes yesterday I was part of a group giving a presentation about communication, and my portion was on filtering and selective perception.

[Winstonm]

sometimes it does appear impossible to reason with you, winston, but i'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you furthering any agenda... i'm sure you'd say you have no agenda, you're just a seeker of the truth

 

It is ironic you brought this up as I was musing today that you might respond in just this fashion - the musing was brought about by a conversation I had last night with my neocon brother Darth Cheney.

 

As I have found with my brother - unless I am willing to accept his worldview and his premises, we have nothing to talk about. You and he are the same in this regard: the only thing either of you is interested in is defending your ideological beliefs. The reason it seems difficult to reason with me is that I flatly reject your premises.

 

My brother and I end up talking about fishing a lot. I guess that makes me impossible to reason with. But I was the one willing to discuss how to improve healthcare coverage with whatever method is pragmatically best - and that includes, but is not limited to, socialized medicine. My brother recited the wingnut claim that no one is turned away in the U.S. and that "You don't want the government running healthcare."

 

And, of course, to this enlightened discussion I could only add: How about those trout?

[luke warm]

sometimes it does appear impossible to reason with you, winston, but i'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you furthering any agenda... i'm sure you'd say you have no agenda, you're just a seeker of the truth

 

It is ironic you brought this up as I was musing today that you might respond in just this fashion - the musing was brought about by a conversation I had last night with my neocon brother Darth Cheney.

 

As I have found with my brother - unless I am willing to accept his worldview and his premises, we have nothing to talk about. You and he are the same in this regard: the only thing either of you is interested in is defending your ideological beliefs. The reason it seems difficult to reason with me is that I flatly reject your premises.

 

My brother and I end up talking about fishing a lot. I guess that makes me impossible to reason with. But I was the one willing to discuss how to improve healthcare coverage with whatever method is pragmatically best - and that includes, but is not limited to, socialized medicine. My brother recited the wingnut claim that no one is turned away in the U.S. and that "You don't want the government running healthcare."

 

And, of course, to this enlightened discussion I could only add: How about those trout?

hmm.. a neocon and a conspiracy nut... must make for a fun reunion

[Lobowolf]

 

My brother recited the wingnut claim that no one is turned away in the U.S. 

 

Wingy as this may sound, sometimes you have to drop it into a discussion with those other wingnuts who try to equate "health insurance" with "health care" (e.g. to make it sound as if the X number of people without insurance are getting no health care), (who also tend to equate "people living in America" with "Americans" (e.g. to inflate the number of Americans who don't have health insurance)).

 

Tens of billions are spent in healthcare annually on people with no health insurance. This may be a strong premise in support of insuring more people - ounces of prevention and pounds of cure, and all that. But it's just as wingy (granted, we're on the other wing now) to go from, say, "45 million people (say, 30 million of whom are American) living in the USA without health insurance" to "45 million Americans receiving no health care."

 

This is not to say that the ol' health insurance = healthcare trick has been tried in this thread, but I've seen it done more than once or twice.

 

Now, you may get riled up and say, "Well, hell, 30 million Americans without health insurance is a HUGE number and way too damned big, even if it isn't 40 (or 45!!!!)"

 

To which I'd reply that yes, it is. But that just strikes me as all the more reason not to fudge the numbers.

[Winstonm]

Wingy as this may sound, sometimes you have to drop it into a discussion with those other wingnuts who try to equate "health insurance" with "health care

 

Although healthcare and health insurance are not synonymous, there is a strong enough correlation to make them close cousins. Probabaly the best way to discuss this is to talk about the health delivery methods of the U.S. Anyone who believes there is equality of treatment is kidding himself, and anyone who believes everyone has access has never worked a 12-hour shift in an emergency room - or if you did your definition of access is much different than mine.

 

The only thing that stirred the conversation toward healthcare at all was my brother's attack on Obama and how Obama is a "Marxist". (This from a retired U.S. Army Colonel, which doesn't make me real confident in the direction of the Pentagon's ambitions.)

[Winstonm]

sometimes it does appear impossible to reason with you, winston, but i'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you furthering any agenda... i'm sure you'd say you have no agenda, you're just a seeker of the truth

 

It is ironic you brought this up as I was musing today that you might respond in just this fashion - the musing was brought about by a conversation I had last night with my neocon brother Darth Cheney.

 

As I have found with my brother - unless I am willing to accept his worldview and his premises, we have nothing to talk about. You and he are the same in this regard: the only thing either of you is interested in is defending your ideological beliefs. The reason it seems difficult to reason with me is that I flatly reject your premises.

 

My brother and I end up talking about fishing a lot. I guess that makes me impossible to reason with. But I was the one willing to discuss how to improve healthcare coverage with whatever method is pragmatically best - and that includes, but is not limited to, socialized medicine. My brother recited the wingnut claim that no one is turned away in the U.S. and that "You don't want the government running healthcare."

 

And, of course, to this enlightened discussion I could only add: How about those trout?

hmm.. a neocon and a conspiracy nut... must make for a fun reunion

What an enlightening discussion. Do much trolling?

[luke warm]

how is that trolling and this

It is impossible to reason with someone who is only interested in furthering his own ideological beliefs - truth is not part of that agenda unless it is accidental.

not?

[PassedOut]

i don't think man has caused global warming and i don't think man can cool the globe...

In an earlier discussion of Pascal's wager, you claimed the ability to hold a belief based on personal advantage. Could that ability be in effect here too?

[luke warm]

i don't think man has caused global warming and i don't think man can cool the globe...

In an earlier discussion of Pascal's wager, you claimed the ability to hold a belief based on personal advantage. Could that ability be in effect here too?

i don't know... anyway, what i wrote is just my opinion, yours may vary