Is this the new face of Global Warming Alarmists?

Question

WOW! Is this what goes through the minds of all those trumpeting global warming?

Dana said, "Why do people form an unshakable belief about a scientfic issue based on virtually no scientific information?

Do you ever feel like we'd be better off if certain people were tossed into a big meat grinder? Maybe we could make some jello out of them."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsGYmJtePDYppTdIiwHI6UMS.Rd.;_ylv=3?qid=20070915114539AALKDM0

This sounds pretty much like your average fascist thought process - destroy all those with an opposing view. And this musing was done in public. You can only imagine what goes on when they are gathered in private, or worse yet, in the darker recesses of their minds.

I'm not sure how you can call this science, anymore, when the folks with post-graduate science degrees are talking this way. Where did we stumble off the path of reason, and how do we find a common ground to solve the very real environmental problems facing all of us?

No, Dana, I DO NOT think that you truly feel that way about people, and I apologize if it came across that way. But your joking around is the same kind of talk (joking that allows us to dehumanize) that has so deeply entrenched racism in the South for generations. As a "top contributor" in a forum that is visited by many easily-influenced teens, this is the kind of speech that can be dangerously misinterpreted. How often have we heard people wishing violence upon others who didn't share the same opinions?

I'm not trying to single you out here, and I hope I'd do the same for any other top contributor who joked around in this way. I try to lighten the mood of this very important subject, quite often, but I hope that it avoids dangerously influencing others.

And Bob, I'm not equating Dana's remarks to the science of AGW or GCC; I'm talking about the lack of science in the Q&A of Y!A. You've questioned it as has Dana - ironically in the very same question his statement came from.

Answer 1

The frustrating thing about this debate is how the skeptics do not, on average, throw rocks at some of the ridiculous sources that are provided by alarmists such as Wikipedia, the BBC, globalwarmingart etc... But when a skeptic provides data that indicates a clear anomaly that shows a possible flaw in the AGW theory, the default reaction by AGW advocates is to attack the site containing the information and not the data itself. Personally I think the intentional deception of the IPCC with their cherry picking of tree ring proxy data for the sole purpose of downplaying the MWP completely discredits their entire archive, and indicates a bias and lack of objectivity on their part. And in my industry more than 90% of the people feel the same way, but I do not continually use that feeling against my opponents on this subject. And the continual reverberation about peer review, I am fairly certain that the thousands of lines of source code and the numerous iterations of parameter smoothing of data feed into climate models has not, and could not, possibly pass peer review.


EDIT:

Well Bob,

Tell me what is wrong with CO2 science?, your slanderous remarks about that entity being "a classic denier website", makes you sound like a cultist. If I take it upon myself to add anyone of the numerous proxy datasets to Wikipedia that show the MWP being as warm or warmer than current and supplement that with the numerous studies by antrhopologists that indicate that the climate of that time was very similar to this time, how long do you think it would last, before someone plugs in their view of that epoch? Overlaying modern averaged instrumental temperature records over a proxy temperature record is just plain and simple hucksterism. Wikipedia is the opinion of the general consensus, and history shows that more than not the general consensus is unsually wrong when it comes to theory. And AGW is still a theory. That is why the IPCC will only say the theory is "more likely than not", as being primarily responsible for the warming.

Answer 2

The amount of convolution in the answers is overwhelming. Some of the people say that global trends can't be extrapolated from 10 years of temperatures over the last 150 years, a time when we were emerging from the little ice age. Then they say it can be extrapolated from the last 150 years over the last 3,000 years or even the last 4.5 billion years. In the 1970's, there was a lot of concern about a new ice age. You can see the temperature was declining since the 1930's until about the mid 70's. The news magazines and the news programs were full of stories about the next ice age. I know, I was there. It was presented as an inevitability, possibly the end of mankind, not something we had to try to stop, but maybe something to prepare for because we couldn't stop it if we wanted to. In this new age of narcissism, the Earth is perfect from the moment I was born and I must preserve this moment in time for the future of the human race because Man is now more powerful than any force on the planet and only I can change the future! Truth is, you and I are only Dust in the Wind.

Answer 3

There are some bad things being said on both sides. Like "I'm not sure how you can call this science anymore."

Demonizing Dana (or Al Gore or...) and then saying that these individuals behavior somehow reflects on the real science of global warming is not as blatantly destructive as Dana's remark. But it is destructive nonetheless. How are professional scientists who have no control over these individuals suddenly responsible or even affected?

Bottom line. It's fine to take people to the woodshed when their behavior or their arguments warrant it. You did it to me when I posted an ill considered answer the other day, and I'm fine with it. Actually I appreciate it, and am taking another run at making my point more thoughtfully.

But to use the behavior of individuals who are not involved in global warming science as an intellectual argument about that science is stupid, frankly. It's done all the time here, but it's beneath you.

Tomcat - "ridiculous sources that are provided by alarmists such as Wikipedia, the BBC, globalwarmingart etc."

This is silly. Wikipedia is a good source when it shows facts, you just have to be reasonably intelligent in spotting a few problems. Tell me what's wrong with this Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Globalwarmingart is taken directly from the peer reviewed literature. Once again, this graph is wrong because?

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

And the BBC is well into the top half of credible media sources.

EDIT 2 - 3DM. What do you expect from Yahoo answers? Of course most of it will be nonsense pulled out of someone's ear, or quoting a biased source. If you're concerned about the science on global warming, it's imperative that you read and ponder the links provided by those actually discussing science. No links in an answer is a sure sign here of no real science, with the exception of Trevor.

Tomcat. I'm working on a question about the MWP, which discusses co2science's stuff. I took a poor run at it and 3DM appropriately destroyed me. But it's pretty obvious that they are an advocacy site. And they distort the science they cite.

Answer 4

I do not think people get your point. How can we have a real discussion of global warming if we intimidate other people into silence?

I may not have studied science, but I have studied social studies. What Dana and others are doing is called creating a group mindset. Most people will believe in something because their neighbour and friends believe in it. If everybody says it is true, then it must be true.

Dana's claim about "Why do people form an unshakable belief about a scientfic issue based on virtually no scientific information?" can be made both ways. There are many people who believe in the theory of man made global warming who do not know anything about the science. If you question them why, they will say, if everybody says it is true, then it must be true.

Answer 5

Sometimes I wonder that maybe global warming may actually be some sort of natural evolution. Who is it to say that God lets this happen? Who knows what is under the Polar Ice Cap? Perhaps there is a solution for everything waiting to be discovered if only we believe. Maybe Al Gore is really an evil person trying to take over the world.
The Bible does say that the Antichrist will come as a friend and not a foe.

Answer 6

I think part or even most of the problem with the issue is personal beliefs.
People choose sites and sources that back up their belief and utilize data in a way that suits them.
While the discussions are entertaining, if you want answers, you need to be analytical about the problems.

Answer 7

i agree with you, having only the media to go by before, and seeing a lot of data from a lot of phd's, i would say there is nothing to worry about, but i am more positive than you because if you and i are both right then why get so upset at mere words, the most important thing is that the polar ice caps will not melt.

Answer 8

today's environmentalists have learned a lot from the socialists/communist and national socialist movements, and have adopted many strategies from them.

lies, half truths and distortion of facts.

repeat the lie enough so it becomes "truth"

use media and others as dupes to lend credibility to the cause.

indoctrinate the children in your philosophies

attack, defame or discredit anyone that opposes the movement (if they could use jail, etc. that would be employed as well)


use the masses to "show" your right, thus
make opponents second guess themselves.

quotes from politicians, CEO's, and other prominent people

in short, your 100% right, unfortuneatly.

there is no "common ground".

their beliefs unwittingly shine through when they make statements like "are you smarter than us and our phd's?"

translated, we're smarter than you, therefore, you don't know what's best.

we win by default. our way IS the best way.

"the debate is over"
"the consensus says..."

obvious proof of my claim.

Answer 9

here's the problem in a nutshell....

people watch too much tv...

basically major news corporations in the US push huge amounts of propaganda for both the right and the left. I can't watch it it makes me sick. It's why people can't have an intelligent conversation about these issues. People don't look to find a middle ground they just quote there favorite excuse that was given on tv, and what's worse is these people are ajoining with parties and just agreeing down the line with everything there party wants despite giving it any thought as to how it may affect them...

Answer 10

Your post is every bit as childish and unreasonable as the post you're trying to attack, 3DM.

For someone who insists on focusing on the science, you sure seem, well, uninterested in it here.

I shall here direct your final statement back at you.