Global warming propaganda: omitting debates

@metal-brain said
Today's Meet the Press (12-30-18) was completely dedicated to the issue of global warming. It is a propaganda piece to mislead and push a carbon tax.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-december-30-2018-n951406

Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

"But just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we're not going to do. We're not ...[text shortened]... n is the main cause of global warming is not settled science. That assertion is very much debatable.

Ok., so temperature change leads CO_2 emissions in natural climate change. What drives natural climate change over shortish (~50kyr) timespans? As a clue, I suggest you look at the stuff I was saying about astronomical forcing in one of the other threads on this issue.

The point is that we are looking at anthropogenic climate forcing, not natural climate change. So CO_2 levels lagging temperature changes does not "debunk" anything.

@deepthought said
Ok., so temperature change leads CO_2 emissions in natural climate change. What drives natural climate change over shortish (~50kyr) timespans? As a clue, I suggest you look at the stuff I was saying about astronomical forcing in one of the other threads on this issue.

The point is that we are looking at anthropogenic climate forcing, not natural climate change. So CO_2 levels lagging temperature changes does not "debunk" anything.

It debunks the perception of cause and effect that most people believe. Most people think the ice core samples prove CO2 caused warming in the past. It does not. This proves that even if there is anthropogenic warming you cannot be certain CO2 is the main cause of that AGW. It could be methane for all you know.
Saying it is both is an easy conclusion to make, but how much is caused by CO2 and how much is caused by methane? You don't know. Nobody does. It could very well be mostly from methane. That would mean natural gas extraction is part of the problem and a carbon tax would be ineffective and increase methane leaks from more natural gas extraction. It would actually make the problem worse.
If you cannot prove how much CO2 warms the atmosphere and how much methane warms the atmosphere you have no business pushing a carbon tax and condoning the propaganda that makes no mention of any alternative solutions.

So now you have to prove anthropogenic climate forcing. You say we are looking at it. Where is your proof and how much is the warming natural vs anthropogenic?
I don't think there is any proof GW is mostly anthropogenic. You merely ASSUME a consensus among climate scientists where there is none because that is the propaganda you have been fed for so long.
Despite being mislead by the corporate news media, the common people who believe GW is anthropogenic is only 57% according to Meet the Press. That is a majority, but only by 7%. The debate is over because of 7% of the people?

That is not right and you know it. If it was in reverse you would not like it at all. You are holding a clear double standard based on political ideology rather than the facts.

What if you listened to Science Friday and Ira Flatow said "loop quantum gravity is superior to string theory and the debate is over, the science is settled". Then he had guests on the program trashing string theory that are not even physicists.


Same thing, right?

@kazetnagorra said
That imaginary broadcast would be eyebrow-raising for sure.

Meanwhile, science still isn't conducted by the press.

Science is influenced by the press. Scientists are born followers too. Many scientists lack the critical thinking skills just like the rest of the population. You are one of them.

@sonhouse said
Ira would NEVER say such a thing, he is too honest for that.
Why do you think public debate will settle ANY science issue?
What if penicillin had some crackpot conspiracy theory built up around it where they would say white folks turn brown or some such BS? You think a public debate would help?

Ira would say that about global warming. I have listened to Science Friday before. He thinks global warming and climate change both mean anthropogenic. He is an idiot if he is honest.

Flatow is not even a scientist. His credibility is completely dependent on his choice of guests.

@deepthought said
Ok., so temperature change leads CO_2 emissions in natural climate change. What drives natural climate change over shortish (~50kyr) timespans? As a clue, I suggest you look at the stuff I was saying about astronomical forcing in one of the other threads on this issue.

The point is that we are looking at anthropogenic climate forcing, not natural climate change. So CO_2 levels lagging temperature changes does not "debunk" anything.

"I suggest you look at the stuff I was saying about astronomical forcing in one of the other threads on this issue."

Your source was full of unintelligible jargon. Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"A lot of people tend to use complicated vocabulary and jargon to mask when they don’t understand something. The problem is we only fool ourselves because we don’t know that we don’t understand. In addition, using jargon conceals our misunderstanding from those around us."

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-feynman-technique-the-best-way-to-learn-anything

Use the Feynman technique.

@metal-brain said
Science is influenced by the press. Scientists are born followers too. Many scientists lack the critical thinking skills just like the rest of the population. You are one of them.

"Many scientists lack [...] critical thinking skills" is, ironically, typically a statement uttered by people who lack critical thinking skills and swallow anti-intellectual propaganda unquestioningly. Can you even back it up? By what measure do scientists "lack critical thinking skills" compared to the general population?

@kazetnagorra said
"Many scientists lack [...] critical thinking skills" is, ironically, typically a statement uttered by people who lack critical thinking skills and swallow anti-intellectual propaganda unquestioningly. Can you even back it up? By what measure do scientists "lack critical thinking skills" compared to the general population?

I'm saying scientists don't have any better critical thinking skills and are just as vulnerable to propaganda as the rest of the population. You are proof of that.
You say there is proof and offer none. When you fail at that you go to the "everybody knows that/consensus" argument. The you fail at that and start the cycle all over again. Then in the end you fool yourself into thinking your failures meant nothing and that you are right despite proving nothing.

Even now you are probably trying to rationalize how all the lies told in the meet the press program are just honest mistakes....how intentionally omitting debates is fine even though you can't deny if it was in reverse you would hate it.....and how an expert panel without a single expert is just another unintended coincidence that you can overlook.

When you hear a myth about GW do you know it before I point it out? If so, do you always assume it is an honest mistake and they forgot to consult experts because they had so much going on at the time?
Is there any point where you will stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and conclude it is deliberate lying? Are you stuck in cycle of cognitive dissonance that will last forever no matter how much lies are told by alarmists?
Honest mistakes due to gossip do not last for years unless there is deliberate suppression of facts by the news media. You think climate scientists can bring attention to the facts when they are not allowed on the news. How can you possibly think that is possible?

You do not think logically. That is what happens when people are brainwashed into accepting double think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

@metal-brain said
I'm saying scientists don't have any better critical thinking skills and are just as vulnerable to propaganda as the rest of the population. You are proof of that.
You say there is proof and offer none. When you fail at that you go to the "everybody knows that/consensus" argument. The you fail at that and start the cycle all over again. Then in the end you fool yourself ...[text shortened]... hen people are brainwashed into accepting double think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

I'm saying scientists don't have any better critical thinking skills [...]

That's like saying bodybuilders aren't any more muscular than the average person.

You say there is proof and offer none.

Tried the peer-reviewed literature yet?

@kazetnagorra said
I'm saying scientists don't have any better critical thinking skills [...]

That's like saying bodybuilders aren't any more muscular than the average person.

You say there is proof and offer none.

Tried the peer-reviewed literature yet?

Peer-reviewed literature is proof? Selecting literature that supports your position is not proof. I can do the same thing.

@kazetnagorra said
I'm saying scientists don't have any better critical thinking skills [...]

That's like saying bodybuilders aren't any more muscular than the average person.

You say there is proof and offer none.

Tried the peer-reviewed literature yet?

"That's like saying bodybuilders aren't any more muscular than the average person."

No, it is not. Intelligence is not a muscle.

During Nazi Germany nuclear physicists did important research to build a nuclear weapon. North Korean nuclear physicists helped the DPRK become a nuclear power.

How were their critical thinking skills? Did every single nation that achieved nuclear weapons do so with the help of physicists that did so without blind patriotism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

@metal-brain said
Peer-reviewed literature is proof? Selecting literature that supports your position is not proof. I can do the same thing.

Really? You can find recent publications in the peer-reviewed literature from reputable journals supporting your claims? Well, don't let me stop you then.

@metal-brain said
Peer-reviewed literature is proof? Selecting literature that supports your position is not proof. I can do the same thing.

So your bottom line is you find fault with the fundamental approach we take to science, that you know better how science should be done.

@sonhouse said
So your bottom line is you find fault with the fundamental approach we take to science, that you know better how science should be done.

If the debates are over why are you still debating me?

I find fault in your actions contradicting your claims. If the debate was over you would be able to ignore me. The approach you take to science is contradicting yourself.

@kazetnagorra said
Really? You can find recent publications in the peer-reviewed literature from reputable journals supporting your claims? Well, don't let me stop you then.

Now it has to be recent? You are being unreasonable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#24f56333545f

Like most alarmists you are trying to impose an unfair criteria. "Fairness" is not part of alarmist's vocabulary. That is why your side lies so much and digresses away from it after your side is exposed as liars.

Why do you condone liars? Don't you have higher standards than that?

@metal-brain said
Now it has to be recent? You are being unreasonable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#24f56333545f

Like most alarmists you are trying to impose an unfair criteria. "Fairness" is not part of alarmist's vocabulary. That is why your side lies so much and digresses away ...[text shortened]... ur side is exposed as liars.

Why do you condone liars? Don't you have higher standards than that?

Can you find publications in the peer-reviewed literature supporting your claims or not?

Of course it has to be (relatively) recent - science progresses, and we know more about climate science now than we did 30 years ago.