I’ve posted before about how militant environmentalists, whom I like to tag ‘Greenahadeen’, do not want anyone to challenge their science or extremist views. Here is yet another example of them trying to shut out debate on what should be the major s…

Includes:

Some establishment scientists seem to be getting the message that they may have over-played their hands and become more parody than prophet. In just the last few weeks, two studies in major journals (Nature and Geophysical Research Letters) dump cold water on the high-end horror-story estimates coming out from politicized groups like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The articles, which cast a gimlet eye on climate-model predictions, show that more likely estimates for doubling of the world’s carbon-dioxide level (which many argue will never happen) would produce a warming between 1.5-4.5 degrees celsius. Not a walk in the park, but not the stuff of Hollywood disaster epics.

He makes these two points:
1) And the irony goes deeper. My book was also viewed as flawed because it was not initially subject to a peer review. (This is untrue: Cambridge did have it peer-reviewed.) Yet, although many scholarly journals have weighed in, the only published material that the committee referred to in its report come from two popular (i.e. non-peer-reviewed) publications, the above-mentioned Scientific American article and — believe it or not — a half-page article in Time. (”Danish Darts. Reviled for sticking it to the ecological dogma. Bjorn Lomborg laughs all the way to the bank.”)

and

2) Yet I have no desire to support one interest group over another. My focus is on providing information that allows people to make better choices. This is most obvious in the discussion over global warming. My point has been that, despite our intuition to “do something” about it, economic analyses show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. Moreover, all current models show that the Kyoto Protocols would have little impact on climate — at a cost of $150 billion to $350 billion annually. With global warming disproportionately affecting Third World countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. For the amount Kyoto would cost the U.S. per year, we could provide everyone in the world with access to basic health, education, water and sanitation. Isn’t this a better way of serving the world?

and one more:

It seems to me that we need to be able to point out such questions without being censured. If the critics want to take each point of the book, dissect it soberly and judge it, that’s their prerogative. So far, however, a fog of hysteria has descended over the debate. The baseless denunciation by the Danish committee — which some have called Orwellian — has led to an academic outcry. In Denmark alone, 280 professors have signed a petition rejecting the decision. Now, more than ever, we need to ensure an open and impartial debate.

Don’t be lazy people!!

But just like “caring” for poor people, conservatives actually care more because they understand that it is better to teach a man to fish than give a man fish (we are talking about able bodied people here) and with the environment conservatives would do well for themselves to treat each scientific topic with due diligence and dipute the crisis mongerer leftist solution oriented people with as much vigor as possible. Because the leftist ideas and crisis mongering is harmful and should be defeated in the market place of ideas (ideas thought by leftists to be criminalized or penalized if the ideas are not in line with theirs – fascism)

Period.

It is pure arrogance to believe that mankind has the power to make such a major change.

One of the things I learned in over 50 marriage counselings is that you can only control your own words and actions – which is why I try to stay out of the gutter (as opposed to most lefties who come here you are different than them) AND one should ALWAYS try to see another’s perspective (especially your partners).

Look at my perspective. I gave you links. You completely discounted them and only saw the things that “bolster” your point. You chose to show me what I already read which was a paragraph that was giving towards Gore but the rest of the article (out of the 4) really took Gore to task for his inaccuracies. What that man was saying was that nobody can dispute that humans have an effect on the environment (AND NOBODY IS MISTRESS). Where the argument centers around webmistress is what extent humans are changing things versus the sun (WHICH IS GETTING HOTTER) and why are there the large contradictions in history (which you ignore) about the periods where there was more carbon dioxide yet cooler temperatures. Additionally, if you read people like Lomborg, he mixes in the economics of the solutions that leftists are pushing for and disputes the crisis mongering mentality of the enviro-nuts.

Where do you stand webmistress? Are you for reasonable approaches not drastic (drastic would hurt people more than the environmental problem)? Are you for allowing people to freely exchange ideas, facts and findings or disallowing them to speak (calling them deniers). Are you for doing due diligence or acting like I’m the reluctant one when I’ve done less laziness on the issue here than almost anyone I know. I’ve read all kinds of work for 16 years. I have what I think are reasonable ideas and conclusions. I am not a crisis mongerer for a reason and it isn’t because I’m paid by Exxon.

One last point. I hear your perspective that you think I’m reluctant. I’m not. I would just like to see behavior that is less lazy. Leftists in my humble opinion need to grow and be less fascistic. Sure some conservatives need to grow also. While I can only control myself I’d hope that you can hear my perspective and look to alternative sources of info than the ones you’ve been reading as what you’ve been reading leads you to believe there is “consensus” which is not TRUE.

I don’t understand your reluctance to point me to the sources I would like to see. I don’t think I’m putting my head in the sand. I would just like to see some definitive proof.

–mistress

Respectfully webmistress, putting your head in the sand is not due diligence and doesn’t further your position or enhance your life.

I know you are better than this webmistress. You are generally respectful, communicate well and one who I consider intelligent.

I challenge you to work on finding (not discounting) work that challenges people you believe. There are plenty out there. Laziness is not an option with me and I’m not name calling here I’m referring to behavior.

You have provided some interesting links and material to read. But, you have yet to provide a single link, source or citation that is peer-reviewed–something that is supported by the scientific method–that backs up your statements. Is that what you mean by alternate sources of information?

–mistress

Webmistress wrote negligently, “Your links don’t necessarily support your claims that there is no concensus.”

My links had contained within:
There is no consensus on the effect human beings have on global warming, versus the effects of other factors such as the sun, Hayward says in his presentation.

And yes. Particulates have dropped dramatically over the last 26 years the article said. It’s in many papers in black and white with measurable amounts of drops in particulates over the last couple decades. Not disputable that pollution has decreased yet leftists want to try with a global dhimming theme to explain away their models inaccuracy.

I welcome alternate sources of information. Do you webmistress? I read and have read all sorts of environmental ideas and facts for over 16 years. You are acting like there is only one side that is accurate and there is a consensus. Hard to continue with that assertion with seriousness.

Your links don’t necessarily support your claims that there is no concensus. There is nothing peer review in any of them, and several statements on the pages supported my claims.

From Particulates:

Fine particulate matter dropped 40 percent.

From Extremism:

He began his 40-minute presentation by extending an olive branch to Gore, saying that “much of what Vice President Gore says about climate change is correct. The planet is warming; human beings are playing a substantial role in that warming.”

In the Broken Hockey stick article, I saw several assertions w/out any supporting references or citations.

And it appears as though the CO2 Science is funded by Exxon. The DNS is registered to Centerforthe Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Google it. It’s been in the news lately.

Where’s the proof?

-mistress

Particulates

Extremism

Broken Hockey Stick

Antarctic ice growing?

Really, the topics discussed are not like discussing “gravity”. Gravity exists and is measurable and constant. There is diverse opinion. Webmistress nor I can do it justice but we can point to well reasoned work and common sense. Through common sense and facts I have determined that webmistress’s claim that there is “consensus” is false. So what other things have webmistress claimes are falsee? It isn’t about being right or wrong webmistress. Either of us could be either. My point is larger. That the freedom of exchange of ideas should be welcome and given the wide range of conclusions on global climate and why things are changing there isn’t consensus and for one set of people (liberals) to act like there is does a disservice to the debate. I welcome ideas. I welcome opinions. Facts should also be thrown out freely and if we can make sense of them great. But then to make LIBERAL POLICY based on some unagreed upon opinions is the wrong way to go given that it would hurt the environment with these policies (just like illegal immigration does) and make more people poor.

You posted a lot of points, but I would be interested in seeing some links.

–mistress