The Person who Set the Stage for Entire Deception of Human-Caused Global Warming (AGW) – Stephen Schneider. (ethical, radical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very interesting post by Dr. Tim Ball.
For those of you who do not believe AGW is a scam, a full, outright, planned collusion to defraud via supposed science in an attempt to bring about radical change, PLEASE read the article linked below.
Quote:
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, 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. This double ethical bind which 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.
Quote:
Uncertainty, or more generally, debate about the level of certainty required to reach a “firm” conclusion, is a perennial issue in science. The difficulties of explaining uncertainty become increasingly salient as society seeks policy prescriptions to deal with global environmental change. How can science be most useful to society when evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, the subjective judgments of experts about the likelihood of outcomes vary, and policymakers seek guidance and justification for courses of action that could cause significant societal changes? How can scientists improve their characterization of uncertainties so that areas of slight disagreement do not become equated with purely speculative concerns, and how can individual subjective judgments be aggregated into group positions? And then, how can policymakers and the public come to understand this input and apply it in deciding upon appropriate actions? In short, how can the scientific content of public policy debates be fairly and openly assessed?
Timothy F Ball? He's your authority? He knows nothing about climate science, was a professor of geography, is funded by big oil, and lies almost as much as Trump. No I won't read his lies.
Timothy F Ball? He's your authority? He knows nothing about climate science, was a professor of geography, is funded by big oil, and lies almost as much as Trump. No I won't read his lies.
I noticed, as usual, you made character assassinations against Dr. Ball in an attempt to dismiss his post, yet never once did you challenge ANY of the content he provided, including quotes, in his post.
A very interesting post by Dr. Tim Ball.
For those of you who do not believe AGW is a scam, a full, outright, planned collusion to defraud via supposed science in an attempt to bring about radical change, PLEASE read the article linked below.
No, that would be a guy named Maurice Strong. The Godfather of Global Warming.
The World Conservation Bank head, where Carbon Taxes were to be banked....
Follow the Money!
A very interesting post by Dr. Tim Ball.
For those of you who do not believe AGW is a scam, a full, outright, planned collusion to defraud via supposed science in an attempt to bring about radical change, PLEASE read the article linked below.
Really, KS_Referee, isn't what this is all about is that you are vehemently opposed to doing anything about combating climate change by paying higher taxes and having to comply with more restrictive regulations? Instead, we should tough it out the best we can as unusual weather disasters happen. Atlanta can surely deal with the next all time record breaking drought by having plenty of bottled water trucked in. Further more, if you don't live along the coast, you don't have to worry about damages being done to beaches and harbors from the result of rising sea levels.
The denialist movment nutters are gonna have to die out before we can make progress on this issue.
By then it will be too late and then characters, like KS_Referee, will be insisting that taxpayers should not be held responsible in any way for cleaning up widespread weather disasters caused by Global Warming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
