User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Another government report is dead wrong on fragile state of our planet

  1. #1
    Points: 667,928, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433903
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    198,127
    Points
    667,928
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    32,210
    Thanked 81,492x in 55,029 Posts
    Mentioned
    2014 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Another government report is dead wrong on fragile state of our planet

    Then again, they could be right this time, but the boy cried wolf.

    Another government report is dead wrong on fragile state of our planet

    ...The media has broadcast far and wide the latest primal scream by the federal government and hundreds of scientists that all life on earth by the end of the century could be severely threatened due to climate change....

    ...How could a government report prepared by hundreds of scientists and with the official imprimatur of the federal government be wrong? The obvious answer is that they have been consistently wrong for decades in predictions of environmental devastation. Anyone over the age of 50 knows that we have heard these sensational, false malthusian forecasts from the federal government, and that reality has contradicted them in almost every instance. Look at history and consider the track record.

    In the 1960s, the world became captivated by the likes of media darling and Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who warned of a population bomb as humans propagated like field mice....

    In the 1970s, the infamous Club of Rome report on “limits to growth” in the world, which was sponsored and funded by the federal government, saw the planet not surviving much past the year 2000 due to poverty, pollution, starvation, overcrowding, climate change, and natural resource depletion. It was all so horrifying that people across the country started wearing lapel pins that said, “Stop the planet, I want to get off.”

    In the 1980s, the Carter administration spent millions of dollars on the most comprehensive environmental report ever undertaken by the federal government, employing hundreds of top scientists from more than two dozen agencies. (Sound familiar?) The end product dismally concluded, “If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now...."....

    When skeptics raised the red flag on these forecasts, they were accused of questioning the “settled” science of the day....

    In every one of these cases, the media uncritically splashed these spooky government forecasts on front pages of nearly every newspaper and on nightly broadcasts of every network across the globe. Environmental groups raised billions of dollars to amplify and combat these crises....

    After every false prediction of doom, the left jumps seamlessly onto the next scare tactic. Think about the progression of false fears over the last several decades. It started with overpopulation, then DDT killing all the birds, then nuclear winter, then mass famine, then toxic air pollution levels that would require humans to wear gas masks, then low sperm counts, then peak oil, then a modern ice age, then earth running out of clean water, then species extinction, then loss of farmland, and on and on....

    ...Scientists should have the wisdom and the modesty to admit that we have no idea what will happen to our planet as climate change continues over the next century. There are too many variables to hazard a decent guess. But the one indomitable lesson of history is that giving the government more power is the most dangerous threat to the future of our planet.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (11-28-2018),Tahuyaman (11-28-2018)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 863,566, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    497489
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    242,817
    Points
    863,566
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,674
    Thanked 148,499x in 94,941 Posts
    Mentioned
    2554 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They get it wrong because they politicize science.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (11-28-2018),Tahuyaman (11-28-2018)

  5. #3
    Points: 435,490, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    308571
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    184,704
    Points
    435,490
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,281
    Thanked 77,586x in 55,991 Posts
    Mentioned
    707 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    They get it wrong because they politicize science.
    They do that because it works. It works even though most know that science has been compromised by politics.

    Science is now a form of confirmation bias.
    Last edited by Tahuyaman; 11-28-2018 at 02:54 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (11-28-2018)

  7. #4
    Points: 667,928, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433903
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    198,127
    Points
    667,928
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    32,210
    Thanked 81,492x in 55,029 Posts
    Mentioned
    2014 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It works because it pays. Much climatology research is funded by government grants. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, talks about how protective status quos form out of the need for funding and how hard it is to buck that.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. #5
    Points: 435,490, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    308571
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    184,704
    Points
    435,490
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,281
    Thanked 77,586x in 55,991 Posts
    Mentioned
    707 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    It works because it pays. Much climatology research is funded by government grants. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, talks about how protective status quos form out of the need for funding and how hard it is to buck that.
    When someone depends upon a government grant, they tend to come up with the results which helps to keep that grant money flowing.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Chris (11-28-2018)

  10. #6
    Points: 667,928, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433903
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    198,127
    Points
    667,928
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    32,210
    Thanked 81,492x in 55,029 Posts
    Mentioned
    2014 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    When someone depends upon a government grant, they tend to come up with the results which helps to keep that grant money flowing.
    Yea, I don't think it's malicious, but a bias seems to develop. You could likely make more find different results and developing new theories but the risk would be higher.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. #7
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The author of this article, Stephen Moore, has committed a logical fallacy by assuming that any government report that paints a dire forecast of the future must be wrong because other government reports about the environment or state of the future were wrong. He also conflates the predictions made by a private citizen, Paul Ehrlich, with a government report and he does a similar thing with the Club of Rome report which was privately funded. He mentions that the Club of Rome was funded by the federal govt. but I have found no evidence of this. He fails to mention that the this govt. report on the effects of the climate on the U.S. economy provides results based on 4 or more scenarios and they are not all dire. The RCP 2.5 scenario is rather benign.

    Stephen Moore claims that he knows more than the collective wisdom of the top climate scientists in the world. He says that they have no idea of what the climate of the planet will be like in the year 2100. He doesn't say that we should ignore the science and just continue a business as usual path but that is what he is implying. He says that the report is dead wrong and he doesn't provide a single piece of evidence to support that outrageous claim. This is a pathetic article.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 11-29-2018 at 03:14 PM.

  12. #8
    Points: 11,803, Level: 26
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 847
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1089
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,594
    Points
    11,803
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    15
    Thanked 1,080x in 797 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    It works because it pays. Much climatology research is funded by government grants. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, talks about how protective status quos form out of the need for funding and how hard it is to buck that.
    Sucks to be you. All the hard data contradicts your political/religious cult, so conspiracy theories are all you have left. Your OP was just a hysterical conspiracy rant.

    Follow the money.

    All the bribe money goes to your side. That's why your side has zero credibility. Your side gets payed well to fake data and commit fraud.

    The reverse goes for the ethical people. Climate scientists could get very wealthy if they chose abandon ethics and lie for your political cult. They don't. They refuse your bribes. They won't lie for money, which gives them even more credibility.

  13. #9
    Points: 223,884, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 17.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468848
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,902
    Points
    223,884
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,238
    Thanked 41,580x in 26,042 Posts
    Mentioned
    1175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Sucks to be you. All the hard data contradicts your political/religious cult, so conspiracy theories are all you have left. Your OP was just a hysterical conspiracy rant.

    Follow the money.

    All the bribe money goes to your side. That's why your side has zero credibility. Your side gets payed well to fake data and commit fraud.

    The reverse goes for the ethical people. Climate scientists could get very wealthy if they chose abandon ethics and lie for your political cult. They don't. They refuse your bribes. They won't lie for money, which gives them even more credibility.
    What "hard data"? You mean the fancy computer simulations that purport to predict the future of the climate? I got news for you: Climate models are not evidence. They're just glorified guesswork. And their guesses are full of uncertainty. If anything, the cult members are the people who strongly adhere to a hypothesis that hasn't been demonstrated.
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (12-05-2018),Peter1469 (12-05-2018)

  15. #10
    Points: 667,928, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433903
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    198,127
    Points
    667,928
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    32,210
    Thanked 81,492x in 55,029 Posts
    Mentioned
    2014 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The author of this article, Stephen Moore, has committed a logical fallacy by assuming that any government report that paints a dire forecast of the future must be wrong because other government reports about the environment or state of the future were wrong. He also conflates the predictions made by a private citizen, Paul Ehrlich, with a government report and he does a similar thing with the Club of Rome report which was privately funded. He mentions that the Club of Rome was funded by the federal govt. but I have found no evidence of this. He fails to mention that the this govt. report on the effects of the climate on the U.S. economy provides results based on 4 or more scenarios and they are not all dire. The RCP 2.5 scenario is rather benign.

    Stephen Moore claims that he knows more than the collective wisdom of the top climate scientists in the world. He says that they have no idea of what the climate of the planet will be like in the year 2100. He doesn't say that we should ignore the science and just continue a business as usual path but that is what he is implying. He says that the report is dead wrong and he doesn't provide a single piece of evidence to support that outrageous claim. This is a pathetic article.

    Sure, he doesn't demonstrate this report wrong, just that it's another alarming report in a long series of them.


    Stephen Moore claims that he knows more than the collective wisdom of the top climate scientists in the world.
    His point is there is no such collective wisdom, that there is no scientific consesus.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts