In other words, if someone does not believe as you believe, they must have been corrupted. Hmm.
.
I bet having his medical license taken away improved his reputation in the anti-vax community, who would conclude that *they* are trying to suppress the truth .... You know the drill. The British medical establishment blundered
Sure. Right. There seems to be an asymmetry here. Plus an innuendo.
.
al
e economic
t.
While a full-up peer-reviewed scientific article is a lot of work to write, I very much doubt that all those people pontificating on either side of the question are anywhere close to that diligent.
.
e side
st
to
Umm. If you knew anything about Lomberg, you would have been able to see past the usual marketing bafflegab. But do read it - your report will be interesting.
.
?
This is actually a non sequitur. Those two hundred countries have no vote in the US.
But anyway, we vote on this (and many other issues) every two years. Candidates with full-green platforms have not been able to achieve sufficient weight in congress to get anything like the full green agenda enacted. If the population believed in the green agenda, it would have been enacted decades ago.
.
I have no idea where this came from ( I certainly said no such thing), or how it relates to the question at hand.
Obviously. It wasn't clear in 1941 that four years would suffice to handle that emergency, and since WW2 morphed into the cold war it was true of that particular emergency either.
global warming
onomic issue?
ary
Not exactly. The denialist propaganda machine is notoriously generous to pe ople who give them copy they can exploit. The scientific facts get publishe d by people who get rewarded by regular career progression.
n the
of a
at
he
show
hing to
We've all heard of Lomberg, but - like pretty much all denialist shills - h e hasn't got much expertise in climate science or economics, and what he pu blishes isn't all that persuasive.
Helped by the fact that his kind of "scepticism" suits the denialist propag anda machine very well, and they are happy to subsidise it.
He isn't and never was.
His wikipedia entry includes the line "In January 2003, the Danish Committ ees on Scientific Dishonesty released a ruling that sent a mixed message, f inding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expert ise in the fields in question."
cts
Wikipedia has to be seen to be "fair". Sourcewatch can call a spade a spade .
formatting link
the
y. A
Any excuse will do.
ll
exactly
The US political system is disfunctional in the sense that people with mone y are allowed to spend as much of it as they like on lying to the electorat e.
The fossil carbon extraction industry exploits this extravagantly - the amo unt of money they stand to lose if burning fossil carbon for fuel gets to b e restricted justifies spending a lot on misleading propaganda.
of
page
ded
The fact that it is ad hominem doesn't make it fallacious. The occasional s peculation about global warming from the mid-1970's is in no way comparable with the mass of scientific evidence that now supports the reality of anth ropogenic global warming, and your proposition that it might be labels you as either dishonest or grossly incompetent - a Lomborg-type figure.
mental
of
Note the line in the line in the 1975 article that says "Just what causes t he onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery". It isn't a mystery today. The arguments and the language may resemble what you see in what journalist s write today, but there is a whole lot more knowledge around today, which is "something new under the Sun".
Journalists who write for the Murdoch press don't seem to pay much attentio n to that knowledge, but it is there if you bother to look. There was a lot less of it in 1975.
Climate change denial propaganda is generated by people who get paid to wri te propaganda to create a desired effect in the target audience.
97% of the top 300 climate scientist are persuaded that anthropogenic globa l warming is real, and of the ten hold-outs I think I can identify five who don't seem to have a rational basis for their scepticism. 5% of the popu lation is nuts, and while the 300 top climate scientists are going to conta in fewer nuts than the average group, they aren't all going to be entirely rational.
s
e
the
d
.)
y'
It you can't appreciate that you are arguing against the weight of a lot of evidence you are either dim, gullible or corrupt. You chose.
of
ring
than
der
of
e, I
You clearly aren't. Have you bothered to plough through
formatting link
I have.
or on
or
n
nothing
rest.
past
will
at
some
rather
in
ient
the
es
The denialist propaganda machine has been misleading the US public since th e late 1990's.
formatting link
Lying to the US electorate to protect the financial interests of the fossil fule extraction industry should be prosecuted as criminal fraud, but since it is dressed up a "free speech" - despite being bought and paid for - the wealthy get away with it. This is a general defect of the US political sys tem - it has always given an unreasonable amount of power to people who can bribe the electorate.
a
how
The US generates some 25% of the planets greenhouse gas emissions, and the people in the US who make a lot of money out of doing this have spent a lot of money keeping the majority silent on the issue.
If you haven't had any idea that this was going on, you've got to be a bit thick.
Excellent example; you cite no facts, just make adjectives to characterize, as though putting a logical argument in a box could invalidate it somehow, as insufficiently politically correct. Like character assassination and backstabbing, such a purity test is cowardly.
nothing to
It's not about the person, Lomberg, it's about any facts that form a logica l argument, and the deficiency of 'skeptical' as an ideal/requirement.
Sensitive, aren't you, on 'ad himinem' issues regarding the author?
will
at
some
cited.
than a vot
in
a
how
No vote in the US really addressed the costs of climate change, and (no surprise here, I hope) climate respects no national boundary nor any voting rights. Voter will has not been expressed, but you take the silence as a verdict: that's the "silent majority" fallacy.
Congress created the EPA to handle such matters in a semi-independent fash ion.
But, that completely misses the point (because the popular press likes to d ramatize).
Science proceeds by creating and testing hypotheses. Like stumbling in th e dark looking for a light switch, you make a lot of false steps, but eventually.. . a light dawns. The historic evidence of ice age glaciation leads naturally to: will there be a next one? Soon? Maybe already starting?
But, it was always an unlikely thing, just VERY hard to pin down when 'sate llite data' gave info on clouds, but not on (for instance) surface temperatures, and when su percomputers weren't available for big-data works.
Calling the exploration of the hypothesis a 'scare' is absurd: there was no predictive model at the time. And, the point of hypotheses is that the BEST ones to test are not highly likely: high likelihood means you gain no new information.
That's why a good reliable lighted switch is next to the bathroom: it's a s afe prediction to make, that that switch will make those dark corners brighten. Modern ligh t-making technology, though, isn't something you study by replaying recordings of fo lk stumbling in the dark.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.