The Bush Administration's War on Science... AGAIN

[ayabe]

This entire fiasco boils down to Rush Limbaugh talking points:

Perrino: "I?m sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals. There are also concerns that it would increase tropical diseases and that?s ? again, I?m not an expert in that, I?m going to let Julie Gerberding testify in regards to that, but there are many studies about this that you can look into."

1. Great answer.

2. No, you wouldn't let her testify Hotness, get your facts straight.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe
This entire fiasco boils down to Rush Limbaugh talking points:

Perrino: "I?m sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals. There are also concerns that it would increase tropical diseases and that?s ? again, I?m not an expert in that, I?m going to let Julie Gerberding testify in regards to that, but there are many studies about this that you can look into."

1. Great answer.

2. No, you wouldn't let her testify Hotness, get your facts straight.

Re: Your #2. NOPE. Read the article. She did testify. It's just that her written report was edited. Two different things.j

Fern

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ayabe
This entire fiasco boils down to Rush Limbaugh talking points:

Perrino: "I?m sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals. There are also concerns that it would increase tropical diseases and that?s ? again, I?m not an expert in that, I?m going to let Julie Gerberding testify in regards to that, but there are many studies about this that you can look into."

1. Great answer.

2. No, you wouldn't let her testify Hotness, get your facts straight.

Re: Your #2. NOPE. Read the article. She did testify. It's just that her written report was edited. Two different things.j

Fern

NOPE.

Why are you being so dense all of a sudden?

She was NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY in the manner in which she wanted. The written version of her testimony is what she was supposed to say but wasn't allowed.

 

[heyheybooboo]

What interesting is that the debate and the science has moved on and left the Deniers behind.

How can you discuss something like global dimming and its impact on climate change with the Deniers???

What do you think the Deniers will say when it's possible particulate polution in the atmosphere masks the effects of increased C02?

What's to debate with a Denier who could care less about methane hydrate releases into the atmosphere due to increases in global temperature?

As far as the Deniers are concerned climate change equals better tans. Think of the investment opportunities! It won't be an issue with the Deniers until they can profit from it . . .

 

[Tab]

After reading this thread did anyone hear all the sudden Double, Ultra, Mega Kill?

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Intesting example. "AIDS IS happening, nor is it contingent on GW. AIDS a real disease that people all around the world already have."

And thats why U.S. policy on aids control in Africa is "just say no". Abstinence only. Forbid the use of condoms. This is just basic denial. A war on the scientific studies of possible aids controls.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It could be explained by this paragraph:

"A CDC official familiar with both versions told the AP that Gerberding?s draft ?was eviscerated.? Among the deletions were ?details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC?s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels.?

Is it her job to make predictions based on a science that is not yet complete and a situation we don't fully yet understand? Don't we have enough GW hysteria being spread already?

This is not a war on science, so your thread title is plainly misleading spin. This is about stomping out rampant speculation and what "might happen" vs. what "will happen."

So we shoudl nto warn people about aids since it is not 100% going to happen. How about the flu season, guess we should nto give out flu shoots since someone "might" get it.

Geez you need to watch Bill O really more. You need to up your spin skills.

AIDS IS happening, nor is it contingent on GW. AIDS a real disease that people all around the world already have. Gerberding?s speech was about what "might" happen. Considering all the past doom & gloom forecasts from the GW crowd that have not come to fruition, why should we permit another to pound the pulpit and fearmonger over GW? Science is about facts, not preaching what ifs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fern1:Seems perfectly logical to me. (The whole bunsen burner & bealer of water is off point, IMO. That analogy at best seems to contemplate that all predicted effects of GW will manifest themselves even though we don't understand GW itself).

M1: Let me help you with your logic. We are not attempting to predict all the possible effects of global warming.

F2: Then it's a mistake and likely useless excercise for the reasonse I described above. If you go with one set of predictions and act on that you may be ill-prepared for what does eventually occur, whether just in planning or in allocation of resources.

M2: That is simply ridiculous. It is a very sensible to predict from craters on the moon and on the earth that, in future, the earth may be hit by something from space and an intelligent species may wish to plan and prepare for such a contingency, but the science involved could not predict an alien invasion. Your argument implies, like it or not, that there is no sense in thinking about how to alter the trajectory of objects that might hit the earth or to study them because in doing so we might get blindsided by aliens. Your logic is simply absurd.
----------
M1: The attempt is to predict what will happen when things warm.

F2: Good example. In spite of it's name GW does not necessarily mean actually mean warming (I thought it was appropriately termed Climate Change for such reason). E.g., it is suspected that the Gulf Stream may alter course resulting in colder temps in places like Europe (UK, Netherland and above mostly)

M2: Correct. Areas of the earth may actually cool due to GW. We are talking about predictions we can make based on our best scientific understanding and that is one of them. All these effects are the result of global warming and I used that term. If you want to use climate change, it's fine by me. The thrust of my argument is unaffected.
--------------------
M1: One kind of warming may differ in some detail from some other kind of warming but the effects due only to the warmth itself will be the same and potentially predictable according to the strength of the models. You are saying that because we can't predict everything with certainty we shouldn't predict what we very possibly can.

F2: Quite the contrary. Because we can't predict with certainty we need to forcast all possible sets of circumstances and develope plans for each. That's what I said above.

M2: What the hell are you taking about. Theoretically nothing can ever be predicted with certainty. Theoretically anything is possible. Science is the study of the facts of nature that lead to predictive laws that tell us how things work. We apply what we know. We can't apply what we don't. We are in the process of trying to gather facts about the earth's climate so we can better predict the climate of the future. We don't know much and can't predict very well. What we do is try to do the best we can. What we do is try, based on what we know, to make the best guess that we can, not about what is possible because that can be anything, but what is likely from what we know. Our predictions are strictly limited by our information. You are asking for a plan to deal with what may happen if the moon explodes and we get hit by green cheese. It is not your job to tell the scientists what to predict. That is their job.
----------

F1: As far as GW and effects on disease etc, would seem reasonable to assume that predicted GW effects such as temps, rainfall and humidity are the things that would impact disease. [sarcasm] Of course, since the arthor of the article was kind enough to leave OUT the details he claims are so important, one must guess. Apparently, searching for a reason to criticize the Admin was more important that the scientific data itself[/sarcasm]

M1: Why assume anything if you know nothing about the science?

F2: One might ask you the same. But the assumption, as noted in original response, was that the GW effects on diasease must be due to weather effects (humidity, heat, whatever)

M2: You can ask me the same all you want, but please include in there what assumptions you think I am making.
-------------

M1: Better yet, why assume you know motivations of scientists or if things were put in or left out, or why if that is so. What you call apparent I would call a biased assumption, one based on a brainwashed right winged attitude.

F2: Motivation of scientists was never addressed or even contemplated in my post, neither were politics. I made no assumption as to what was left in or out of her report; I just quoted her own spokeperson.

M2: OK lets go back to where you said you assumed and let me repeat: Why assume anything?

F: So far, the predictions of GW effects/impact have so differed so much, and been revised so often making health/disease predictions regarding them looks friutless, if not fancilful.

M1: Who cares what you think.

F2: Apprently you do, or you wouldn't spend so much posting about it. Of course, would be helpful if demonstrated a little reading comprehension

M2: I am a nobody and don't count. My point is that you are expressing opinions on a scientific subject and science doesn't give a fruit bar for opinions.

M1: Scientists are theoretically dedicated to science and care not a fig what you think of their predictions. They can turn on a dime but as an ideologue you have feet of clay.

F2: I haven't posted anything "idelogue". Unlike you lately. Need I hunt up some of your quotes?

M2: Was I discussing science?
------------
M1: Rigid pleasing consistent thinking is a authoritarian trait, not a scientific one.

F2: Scientific thinking is disciplined. If you wanna call it rigid, pleasing & consistent go right ahead. Anyhoo, consistent thinking is a plus, not a negative. Unless you misuse the term and mean something else.

M2: Science is consistent in the use of the scientific method. Science is inconsistent because it constantly evolves. That is what I mean.

F1: While charting out the many possible outcomes (heavy rainfall & humidity, wildfires & arid weather etc) and the resulting potentialities would seem responsible, deciding on just one set of possible outcomes and pursuing that strike me as foolish.

M1: Become a scientist and publish work and get it peer review and see what people who matter think of your ideas.

F1: One may find themslves in the unfortunate circumstance of planing for and allocating resource to a situation which never arises. Thus being unprepared and il eqiuped for that which does.

M1: Man I know it. I have spent a fortune in insurance and never used it. I even bought a truck load of duct tape. And every time I go to the air port some asshole working on my dime wants to look at my shoes. I swear they must taste like chicken.

 

[WHAMPOM]

History repeats itself. Reagan's adminstration dismissed the danger of AIDS until infection reached epidemic proportation. Now GB is practising the same "ignore it and it will go away" with Global Warming.

edit; This topic was about political censoring of scientific papers. So how can there be peer review or critical discussion of an edited report? Why employ experts for their opinions then muzzle them?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M1: Man I know it. I have spent a fortune in insurance and never used it. I even bought a truck load of duct tape. And every time I go to the air port some asshole working on my dime wants to look at my shoes. I swear they must taste like chicken.

Poor, pretentious little Moonie.

What a sad life you must lead that having someone look at your shoes is such a major concern to you. 🙁

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M1: Man I know it. I have spent a fortune in insurance and never used it. I even bought a truck load of duct tape. And every time I go to the air port some asshole working on my dime wants to look at my shoes. I swear they must taste like chicken.

Poor, pretentious little Moonie.

What a sad life you must lead that having someone look at your shoes is such a major concern to you. 🙁

Good God, please, don't let him be that dumb. Please God let him just be a prick and an asshole who throws words and spite just to see if anything will stick. Please don't let him think I was speaking seriously rather than telling Fern how far off his comment preceding mine was. Please, God, don't let him really be such a moron as to think I worry about having to take my shoes off rather than saying how stupid it would be not to check, regardless of how remote the chance is that I would have explosives there, because real terrorists have tried that method before. Oh I do hope he's not really that dumb.

But just in case let's spell it out in hopefully more idiot proof language>

Fern: One may find themslves in the unfortunate circumstance of planing for and allocating resource to a situation which never arises. Thus being unprepared and il eqiuped for that which does.

M: Now instead of saying : "Man I know it. I have spent a fortune in insurance and never used it. I even bought a truck load of duct tape. And every time I go to the air port some asshole working on my dime wants to look at my shoes. I swear they must taste like chicken.", let's put another way.

Wrong. There is no shame or problem in putting resources and planning for things that never arise. That is the principle of most insurance. The insurance companies allow you to plan for and anticipate situations you hope will never happen, but which you will be protected for if they ever should. This sharing of risk allows every body to buy cheap protection, relatively speaking and allows the insurance company to make a profit. In order to make a profit, however, and to keep insurance costs down, people protect against know and predictable situations that are of high risk. We don't have insurance against glaciers or the consequences of being hit by tons of penguin poop. But we do check at airports for bombs in the souls of shoes because we got fooled once by that. And now that we know we continue to check shoes even though the terrorists will be moving on to something else. All of this can be viewed as wasteful and empty, but we don't let that stop us or cause us to let down out guard.

In the same way we should know what science can tell us about the risks of climate change. Known risks should be prepared for. For the rest we have to expect the unexpected as best as we can.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M1: Man I know it. I have spent a fortune in insurance and never used it. I even bought a truck load of duct tape. And every time I go to the air port some asshole working on my dime wants to look at my shoes. I swear they must taste like chicken.

Poor, pretentious little Moonie.

What a sad life you must lead that having someone look at your shoes is such a major concern to you. 🙁

Good God, please, don't let him be that dumb. Please God let him just be a prick and an asshole who throws words and spite just to see if anything will stick. Please don't let him think I was speaking seriously rather than telling Fern how far off his comment preceding mine was. Please, God, don't let him really be such a moron as to think I worry about having to take my shoes off rather than saying how stupid it would be not to check, regardless of how remote the chance is that I would have explosives there, because real terrorists have tried that method before. Oh I do hope he's not really that dumb.

But just in case let's spell it out in hopefully more idiot proof language>

Fern: One may find themslves in the unfortunate circumstance of planing for and allocating resource to a situation which never arises. Thus being unprepared and il eqiuped for that which does.

M: Now instead of saying : "Man I know it. I have spent a fortune in insurance and never used it. I even bought a truck load of duct tape. And every time I go to the air port some asshole working on my dime wants to look at my shoes. I swear they must taste like chicken.", let's put another way.

Wrong. There is no shame or problem in putting resources and planning for things that never arise. That is the principle of most insurance. The insurance companies allow you to plan for and anticipate situations you hope will never happen, but which you will be protected for if they ever should. This sharing of risk allows every body to buy cheap protection, relatively speaking and allows the insurance company to make a profit. In order to make a profit, however, and to keep insurance costs down, people protect against know and predictable situations that are of high risk. We don't have insurance against glaciers or the consequences of being hit by tons of penguin poop. But we do check at airports for bombs in the souls of shoes because we got fooled once by that. And now that we know we continue to check shoes even though the terrorists will be moving on to something else. All of this can be viewed as wasteful and empty, but we don't let that stop us or cause us to let down out guard.

In the same way we should know what science can tell us about the risks of climate change. Known risks should be prepared for. For the rest we have to expect the unexpected as best as we can.

I'm agnostic so I won't do any praying, however, you're more than welcome to seek a higher power to deal with whatever issues are troubling your own self.

But apparently you feel that you're so incomprehensible by people in here and so far above their intellect that they miss out on what you have to say. Obviously though you're not so smart as to recognize plain old sarcasm aimed directly at you when you see it. Seeing how you're absolutely full of yourself and full of your own grandiose bullshit, it doesn't surprise me though. It happens to twits like you, Moonie, who think they're so much more clever than everyone else.

The joke is on you though because you're really nothing more than a simpleton trying hard to break out of that simplistic mold.

Let me spell it out for you very plainly: Yes, we should prepare for global warming. We should understand the risks involved and what the future may bring. The problem is that people have been making predictions and have been wrong, time after time after time. Nobody has made a decent prediction concerning GW yet. All the predictions keep falling flat on their face. We don't have a decent scientific base to use in order to make even semi-valid predictions yet.

Science can consist of predictions that fail and quite often does. When a theory fails to properly predict where GRBs originate, as they did for many years, it's really no big deal. When a theory fails to unite gravity with electromagnetism and the strong/weak force, it's no skin off my teeth. When theories gets GW wrong, continuing to overstate the case again and again, making those scientists look like Chicken Little in the process, that's a problem because GW affects our immediate future.

This is about theories that might affect our lives and those of our children. You are advocating that we prepare for something we can't properly predict yet because although we know it's happening we don't fully understand why or how. It would make as much sense as preparing for another GRB because a certain group of scientists have come to a consensus, even though their theory hasn't been born out by historical observation and their models of the process don't match reality. In my book that is not just science, it's BAD science. So why do you want to advocate the propagation of bad science?

When we have some decent models of GW that make some respectable predictions then I'm all for some forecasting. We aren't at that point yet and making predictions based on what we know know would be foolhardy, irresponsible, and utterly asinine. So why overlook the poor prediction history regarding GW? Is it just to be an ass, Moonie?

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: I'm agnostic so I won't do any praying, however, you're more than welcome to seek a higher power to deal with whatever issues are troubling your own self.

But apparently you feel that you're so incomprehensible by people in here and so far above their intellect that they miss out on what you have to say.

M:Come come, do you even listen to what YOU say? Why would somebody with as high an opinion of himself as I believe there some HIGHER power. Wouldn't I already be as high as you can get?

And I think you might mean I feel miscomprehended rather than incomprehensible, no? I can assure you I feel pretty comprehensible to me.

TLC: Obviously though you're not so smart as to recognize plain old sarcasm aimed directly at you when you see it. Seeing how you're absolutely full of yourself and full of your own grandiose bullshit, it doesn't surprise me though. It happens to twits like you, Moonie, who think they're so much more clever than everyone else.

M: Not at all. You are such a joke and so full of sh!t that what you call sarcasm and what I call imbecility are easily interchangeable. It's not that I couldn't guess what you might be aiming for but rather that the poorness of quality demanded a more literal response. Sarcasm that is absurd looses its punch. And I don't suppose you noted I threated you to some of the same.

TLC: The joke is on you though because you're really nothing more than a simpleton trying hard to break out of that simplistic mold.

M: The joke is always on me because being around assholes like you always makes me feel the need for a bath.

TLC: Let me spell it out for you very plainly: Yes, we should prepare for global warming. We should understand the risks involved and what the future may bring.

M: Oh shit, don't tell Fern.

TLC: The problem is that people have been making predictions and have been wrong, time after time after time. Nobody has made a decent prediction concerning GW yet. All the predictions keep falling flat on their face. We don't have a decent scientific base to use in order to make even semi-valid predictions yet.

Science can consist of predictions that fail and quite often does. When a theory fails to properly predict where GRBs originate, as they did for many years, it's really no big deal. When a theory fails to unite gravity with electromagnetism and the strong/weak force, it's no skin off my teeth. When theories gets GW wrong, continuing to overstate the case again and again, making those scientists look like Chicken Little in the process, that's a problem because GW affects our immediate future.

This is about theories that might affect our lives and those of our children. You are advocating that we prepare for something we can't properly predict yet because although we know it's happening we don't fully understand why or how. It would make as much sense as preparing for another GRB because a certain group of scientists have come to a consensus, even though their theory hasn't been born out by historical observation and their models of the process don't match reality. In my book that is not just science, it's BAD science. So why do you want to advocate the propagation of bad science?

When we have some decent models of GW that make some respectable predictions then I'm all for some forecasting. We aren't at that point yet and making predictions based on what we know know would be foolhardy, irresponsible, and utterly asinine. So why overlook the poor prediction history regarding GW? Is it just to be an ass, Moonie?

My dear Sir, I am neither bright enough to know all these things you claim here as truth nor would I be arrogant enough to believe myself absolutely right if I did. I would not arrogate to myself the right to determine what is good and bad science in this field nor would I suppress data and scholarly opinion. You forget, again, that I am not arguing about global warming, the state of the science, or the accuracy of predictions. What I want, or what I don't want is for people with opinions like your own to get between me and the data. I want to hear what the wide eyed assholes who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground think I might be at risk of in future from global warming. I don't want any arrogant butt-heads to suppress facts then call lies for whatever reason because they in their infinite wisdom are convinced they will scare me and cause me to react with unreason. Keep your fucking hands off the data, however poor you claim it is. Let me come to my own fucked up opinion regarding the views espoused by those stupid scientists.

In short I want to hear what science thinks and I don't give a shit what you think. When I want to hear blow flies I'll hang some meat in the yard.

And it's no f@cking wonder you call me grandiose and full of myself. If you ever explode each of the pieces will make ten of me.

 

[StepUp]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't believe I've ever run across a dumber group of people than the BDS crew that infests this forum.

Yes, science uses facts to make predictions. That works fine when we have those facts.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS ON GW TO MAKE ANY DECENTLY VALID PREDICTIONS YET.

How hard is it for you idiots to comprehend that? We have facts on bird flu. We know how it spreads and how to fight it properly. We have facts on AIDS. We do not have nearly enough facts on GW to use to make predictions that withstand scrutiny at this point so it would be moronic to try to speculate on its affects on something like disease down the road. Doing so would only serve to fuel hysteria.

Sheesh, what a bunch of knee-jerkish tools in here.

WRONG. I worked in the Pharm. industry and no they did not know that 100%. In fact they have seen it mutate already. As such one place I worked at was running drugs that would fight certain strains and mutations and MIGHT show up in humans. They are not 100% sure, let alone have all teh "facts". In fact they were basing it off of predictions that MIGHT happen.

Now stop posting unless you want to show how dumb you are. Go back to Faux and get some more quotes.

Jesus what an ignorant statement. Many diseases mutate. AIDS does too. That is taken into account and can still allow us to make decent predictions about what will happen with the spread of bird flu and other deadly diseaes. Our knowledge doesn't have to be 100% either, so please stop with that srawman. We have ENOUGH information to make valid predictions in the case of bird flu and prepared for scenarios. We don't yet have enough information to make valid predictions about the effects of global warming. If we did then the models of GW wouldn't continue to fail year after year after year.

Now go back to HuffPo and see if someone else can tell you what your next response tactic will be.

:roll:

You are a brilliant scientist. Back up your f@cking claims that we don't have enough evidence. Science is about best evidence and a real scientist made some best available science predictions. Show me where you are other than an opinionated, anti-science, imbecile who is doing anything but regurgitating the stupidity of other anti-science fools.

You are stuffed full of opinions, poor ones, and that is all.

If we had enough evidence the models wouldn't continually fail, time after time.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

What's the problem with the models?

When the authors analyzed the IPCC computer model runs, they found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model simulation was 5.4 percent per decade. September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic. But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period.

They can't even properly model the past. How the HELL are they supposed to model the future?

Now take your lame accusations, Moonboy, and shove them up your...

No, your lame thinking is coming from you.... You are arguing the issue of climate change. That is not the argument or what the science here is about or what is being censored. We are talking about the health consequences of warming of the climate and the potential risk to humans. We are not talking about whether it will happen, why it's happening, or the accuracy of predictive models. We are talking about the best science understanding of what WILL be the consequences IF it continues to warm. It was that data that was being censored. Try to keep up. Your knee seems to be jerking.

And this TLC is where you lose the argument. What are your qualifications based on biology? I have a a few. What she was saying makes perfect sense to someone like me. If you cut yourself and shove a handful of dirt into the wound you might get an infection. If you shoot yourself with a gun you might die. That's the kind of might we are talking about here. You can make a claim for or against warming, however are you going to seriously tell us that in warmer climates malaria is less of an issue?

You're so hung up on warming that you have completely disregarded what the issue was to begin with. The issue is that Bush gagged the head of the CDC so she cannot offer her considered opinion on well established facts regarding what happens if those conditions where malaria etc became more common in the US. Because she can't predict when or where disease vectors must occur doesn't make her testimony any less reasonable for consideration.

I'd like to see TLC's retort to this rather than the e-fight with moony....

The real issue here is not about GW, but about the censorship of a key scientist, at least in my opinion. She should be free to give her full, unaltered opinion on the matter, not silenced by the coin of the companies who have something at stake.

Global warming really is like a religious debate, one in which no one seems to win, and everyone seems to lose.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: StepUp
I'd like to see TLC's retort to this rather than the e-fight with moony....

The real issue here is not about GW, but about the censorship of a key scientist, at least in my opinion. She should be free to give her full, unaltered opinion on the matter, not silenced by the coin of the companies who have something at stake.

Global warming really is like a religious debate, one in which no one seems to win, and everyone seems to lose.

I've already said my piece on that issue. Her opinion on the spread of disease under GW conditions cannot be valid because we don't actually know what those conditions will be. Considering that GW effects have been grossly overestimated for years now it likely her description of how it would affect the spread of diseases would be wrong based on the knowledge we had. Not only is doing something like that bad science, it's irresponsible.

Let's turn the situation around. Instead of disease, how about we have someone testify about the positive changes we might see under GW? Should someone testify before congress how formerly arid land will now become farmable and usable based on our current knowledge of GW? That higher CO2 levels are more conducive to plant growth? That growing seasons will be longer and could have a positive effect on feeding the world's malnourished population?

I'd be willing to bet the same people beefing about the so-called "censorship" of the good doctor's speech would be applauding if a speech on GW's positive effects were censored. I'd be applauding along with them too because the base of any such opinion is our knowledge of GW and we don't have a good grasp on the mechanisms behind GW yet, so why make prognostications on something that is still so poorly understood?

GW is a slow, gradual process. It's not as if one day we are going to wake up and suddenly be standing knee-deep in water battling malaria-ridden mosquitoes. So let's get the science behind GW right first, THEN start forecasting based on that science.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: StepUp
I'd like to see TLC's retort to this rather than the e-fight with moony....

The real issue here is not about GW, but about the censorship of a key scientist, at least in my opinion. She should be free to give her full, unaltered opinion on the matter, not silenced by the coin of the companies who have something at stake.

Global warming really is like a religious debate, one in which no one seems to win, and everyone seems to lose.

I've already said my piece on that issue. Her opinion on the spread of disease under GW conditions cannot be valid because we don't actually know what those conditions will be. Considering that GW effects have been grossly overestimated for years now it likely her description of how it would affect the spread of diseases would be wrong based on the knowledge we had. Not only is doing something like that bad science, it's irresponsible.

Let's turn the situation around. Instead of disease, how about we have someone testify about the positive changes we might see under GW? Should someone testify before congress how formerly arid land will now become farmable and usable based on our current knowledge of GW? That higher CO2 levels are more conducive to plant growth? That growing seasons will be longer and could have a positive effect on feeding the world's malnourished population?

I'd be willing to bet the same people beefing about the so-called "censorship" of the good doctor's speech would be applauding if a speech on GW's positive effects were censored. I'd be applauding along with them too because the base of any such opinion is our knowledge of GW and we don't have a good grasp on the mechanisms behind GW yet, so why make prognostications on something that is still so poorly understood?

GW is a slow, gradual process. It's not as if one day we are going to wake up and suddenly be standing knee-deep in water battling malaria-ridden mosquitoes. So let's get the science behind GW right first, THEN start forecasting based on that science.

Hey, TastesLikeChicken, did you just make all this stuff up? Like you did when claimed to have read a book that wasn't even published yet.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: I've already said my piece on that issue. Her opinion on the spread of disease under GW conditions cannot be valid because we don't actually know what those conditions will be.

M: In the first place she is a scientist, or reporting on other scientists work and you are one person with your own opinion. You have a right to your opinion and a right to participate in real science if you think you have something real to contribute. I don't want you to tell me I can't hear her data because your opinion is that it's worthless. I want to hear scientific opinion on important issues not have a disaster president censor the data.

And we do know the conditions that global warming will bring because we know something about what goes on at different temperatures and thus can predict changes that changes in temperature will bring. We don't know that tropical termites are going to eat your head but we do know that somewhere somebody may lose a leg.

TLC: Considering that GW effects have been grossly overestimated for years now it likely her description of how it would affect the spread of diseases would be wrong based on the knowledge we had. Not only is doing something like that bad science, it's irresponsible.

M: I know your ego is the size of a mountain, but how many times do I have to say, you have every right to your, in my opinion, stupid views, but don't stand between me and the view of real scientists. Because you ask a question important to you but inane to me persuades you but doesn't phase me. Think whatever you like but don't suppress other data, OK.

TLC: Let's turn the situation around. Instead of disease, how about we have someone testify about the positive changes we might see under GW? Should someone testify before congress how formerly arid land will now become farmable and usable based on our current knowledge of GW? That higher CO2 levels are more conducive to plant growth? That growing seasons will be longer and could have a positive effect on feeding the world's malnourished population?

M: Fucking absolutely. Such things will, I believe, doubtlessly arise and we should be prepared to take advantage of any new blessings we find in the greater world tragedy. I want to know the truth as best as our science can tell us, whatever it may be.

TLC: I'd be willing to bet the same people beefing about the so-called "censorship" of the good doctor's speech would be applauding if a speech on GW's positive effects were censored. I'd be applauding along with them too because the base of any such opinion is our knowledge of GW and we don't have a good grasp on the mechanisms behind GW yet, so why make prognostications on something that is still so poorly understood?

M: I gave you my answer to that. I am not interested in your opinion of what is too poorly understood to validly prognosticate about. Let me hear the data, evaluate it as best I can, and come to my own conclusion.

TLC: GW is a slow, gradual process. It's not as if one day we are going to wake up and suddenly be standing knee-deep in water battling malaria-ridden mosquitoes. So let's get the science behind GW right first, THEN start forecasting based on that science.

M: West Nile, yesterday was a distant problem. Today it's only miles from where I live. Did nobody read you the story of The Three Little Pigs? We will likely never fully understand or be able accurately to predict all aspects of climate change. You do what you can with what you have. Don't like up the hammer because you think the head may fly off and konk me. Let me figure out how to use it for myself if I chose to. Every idiot knows that predictions are just that, best guesses as to what will occur. You apply what you do know as best that you can and when that's done you don't allow fools who think they know better to censor the data. Tomorrow the data will be better. Let's hear what we think we know today.

What your problem really is, in my opinion, is that you are afraid to let other people think. Your arrogance is a kind of fear and mistrust of other people. You may have been dropped on your head. You are terrified I will look at the data and come to a different conclusion than you, that your pleating will go unheard. You're a kind of control freak. Believe me, I know it's tempting. But we live in a world of democratic consensus and to evolve in our general understanding we need all the information we can get. Do not come down on the side of those who know too well what we should see and be told.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Look, dumbass. I already stated that I'm more than willing to hear the prognostications when it will be based on some solid science. GW science is not solid science at this point in time. Trying to make this out as if I want to stifle some sort of speaking truth to power is just pure idiocy. I mean, heck, let's testify about the potentially dangerous alien pathogens we might run into when FTL travel becomes reality as well. It would make as much sense.

But if you want to run around making proclamations based on a climate issue we have no real understanding of yet, go on. Help yourself. Doing so and proclaiming the world is coming to an end would be nothing new coming from the unhinged left. You morons seem to love any opinion that feeds your fucking idiotic appetite for doom and gloom.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: Look, dumbass. I already stated that I'm more than willing to hear the prognostications when it will be based on some solid science. GW science is not solid science at this point in time.
M: Look, arrogant butt-head, you are entitled to that opinion. You are free to call this or that science anything you want. What you are not entitled to is the claim that because you have an opinion that opinion is going to be what holds sway. Your opinion is for you. My opinion may take me another way. You don't determine what is solid science for me. You don't tell me GW science isn't solid science. I make those determinations for myself.

TLC: Trying to make this out as if I want to stifle some sort of speaking truth to power is just pure idiocy.

M: You're beginning to rave. I don't know what you're talking about.

TLC: I mean, heck, let's testify about the potentially dangerous alien pathogens we might run into when FTL travel becomes reality as well. It would make as much sense.

M: Go right ahead. You and people who think like you make a ready audience, in my opinion.

TLC: But if you want to run around making proclamations based on a climate issue we have no real understanding of yet, go on. Help yourself.

M: I don't want to go around doing that. I want to hear the opinions of real scientists who are expressing whatever opinion they have come to one way or the other.

TLC: Doing so and proclaiming the world is coming to an end would be nothing new coming from the unhinged left. You morons seem to love any opinion that feeds your fucking idiotic appetite for doom and gloom.

M: I told you you are afraid and a control freak but telling you doesn't help you see. You are a bigot stuffed full of irrational preconceptions about people you fear and want to diminish and silence and are absolutely emotionally convinced of the truth of what you feel. Bigots are blind. Your sense of certainty is why you are a fanatic and why your form of thinking is an anathema to a free democracy. You have a fascist mentality.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

A bigot?

Now you're just being plainly stupid and wildly lashing out.

If you want the information on how GW might affect disease vectors for your own personal edification, then google it. The information is readily available. Then you can make up your own mind, at least what's left of it, if anything there's anything there at all.

What you don't recognize is that you're requesting is a member of our government provide testimony on a scientific issue that we don't have a firm grasp on yet in order to shape official policy. The fact that you don't see the difference between being informative and shaping policy demonstrates your own willful blindness and complete lack of reason in this matter.

And don't try to transfer your own personal issues over to me. That's one of your big mistakes; assuming you know a damn thing about me because you seriously don't even have the first clue in that department. Just because you loathe yourself doesn't mean everyone does. If you want to see a fat little fascist, go stare in the mirror, ignorant troll.

 

[Moonbeam]

A bigot?

Now you're just being plainly stupid and wildly lashing out.

Not in the least. I have no need to diminish you. I do because you're a boob, a bore, and an asshole who does it in thread after thread to others. You are a pretentious asshole and it's fun to watch you perform.

You are a bigot and although completely blind yourself to that fact, it's obvious for others, not infected with your brand of bigotry to see. I will show you but you won't see. You are too sure that what you think is right IS actually real;

"Doing so and proclaiming the world is coming to an end would be nothing new coming from the unhinged left." You morons seem to love any opinion that feeds your fucking idiotic appetite for doom and gloom.

You have the bigoted prejudicial opinion that there is something out there called the unhinged left into which you have special insight and can identify. It's not a matter for you that you see what you see because you're from the crack-pot right which has been spoon fed this nonsense and vile contempt for untold years and years into your hungry stomach. You are do deep into your bigotry that for you it's normal.
You haven't the slightest clue that your mind is sick. You go on, in the stereotypical way of bigots to identify and link me to that imaginary evil you have created to make you yourself seem special, informed, and of course, rational, to hide how worthless you really feel.

For no other reason do you struggle so ridiculously to fend me off, even after saying good bye. You thought you could fake it with somebody who knows you better than you.

TLC: If you want the information on how GW might affect disease vectors for your own personal edification, then google it. The information is readily available. Then you can make up your own mind, at least what's left of it, if anything there's anything there at all.

M: I lost everything you have, thankfully.

TLC: What you don't recognize is that you're requesting is a member of our government provide testimony on a scientific issue that we don't have a firm grasp on yet in order to shape official policy. The fact that you don't see the difference between being informative and shaping policy demonstrates your own willful blindness and complete lack of reason in this matter.

M: You almost make some sense here for the first time in the thread but likely you're desperation in wanting to look good has messed you up. You present the matter dishonestly. I am not requesting anybody do anything. And we have already been over and over the issue you're blind to. It is your opinion that the GW is an issue we don't have a firm grasp on. It is not GW that is the issue of this debate. It is your opinion that data arrived at regarding the health effects of GW are invalid. I am not calling on anybody to produce data. I want to have what's been produced so far. I will determine if I think it has any merit, not you. I trust both science and people to make the best decisions they can given the best information they can get and I don't want Nanny bigots like you telling me what data I can have, how it might doom and gloom Charlie down the street, and how that bastard might steal my air conditioner in his panic. You are a freaking paranoid bigot and an arrogant butt-head all wrapped into one. But watch out, the monsters of the id will get you if you don't watch out. Keep everything in control.

TLC: And don't try to transfer your own personal issues over to me. That's one of your big mistakes; assuming you know a damn thing about me because you seriously don't even have the first clue in that department. Just because you loathe yourself doesn't mean everyone does.

M: Hehe, why should you be the only one to transfer your issues on others. You have so many more than I, it is much better for you to be on your end of this deal, except of course for how foolish you make your own self look. The mistake you made is to think that because I know something about me means I don't know you. No I know you far better than you do. I paid a far greater tuition and went to a much better school.

TLC: If you want to see a fat little fascist, go stare in the mirror, ignorant troll.

M: I stared so long in the mirror I disappeared.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not in the least. I have no need to diminish you. I do because you're a boob, a bore, and an asshole who does it in thread after thread to others. You are a pretentious asshole and it's fun to watch you perform.

You are a bigot and although completely blind yourself to that fact, it's obvious for others, not infected with your brand of bigotry to see. I will show you but you won't see. You are too sure that what you think is right IS actually real;

lol. So says the forum twit, Moonie, who has to spew psycho-pop double-speak in an arrogant, condescneding manner because he's too afraid to speak straight up out of fear that people might recognize how full of shit he is.

You have the bigoted prejudicial opinion that there is something out there called the unhinged left into which you have special insight and can identify. It's not a matter for you that you see what you see because you're from the crack-pot right which has been spoon fed this nonsense and vile contempt for untold years and years into your hungry stomach. You are do deep into your bigotry that for you it's normal.
You haven't the slightest clue that your mind is sick. You go on, in the stereotypical way of bigots to identify and link me to that imaginary evil you have created to make you yourself seem special, informed, and of course, rational, to hide how worthless you really feel.

More arrogance from Moonie, pretending to know the mind of others. Once again, you don't have the first clue as to how I feel. Nor do I think I'm special. There are plenty of people in this forum who are smarter and more informed than I am. However, you aren't one of them. Rational? YOU accuse me of trying to seem rational?

That's a hoot, particularly for anyone who has ever read one of your anti-nuclear power rants with all its associated knee-jerking and 1970s enviro-wacko mindset. You should be one of the last people in this forum to question anyone's rationality.

For no other reason do you struggle so ridiculously to fend me off, even after saying good bye. You thought you could fake it with somebody who knows you better than you.

I don't have to struggle, and your arrogance is showing once again. Pull up your clown pants and tighten your belt.

M: You almost make some sense here for the first time in the thread but likely you're desperation in wanting to look good has messed you up. You present the matter dishonestly. I am not requesting anybody do anything. And we have already been over and over the issue you're blind to. It is your opinion that the GW is an issue we don't have a firm grasp on. It is not GW that is the issue of this debate. It is your opinion that data arrived at regarding the health effects of GW are invalid. I am not calling on anybody to produce data. I want to have what's been produced so far. I will determine if I think it has any merit, not you. I trust both science and people to make the best decisions they can given the best information they can get and I don't want Nanny bigots like you telling me what data I can have, how it might doom and gloom Charlie down the street, and how that bastard might steal my air conditioner in his panic. You are a freaking paranoid bigot and an arrogant butt-head all wrapped into one. But watch out, the monsters of the id will get you if you don't watch out. Keep everything in control.

Ahh, and here's the crux of the matter. Moonie didn't see what should have already been plainly obvious -- that this speech was about affecting public policy. I didn't really feel I should have had to explain that because I thought it was a given. My mistake though. Apparently Moonie is too stupid to recognize what should have already been plainly obvious to everyone, without further elaboration. After all, the link in the OP does more than hint at the fact that Dr. Gerberding was speaking in front of a Senate panel.

Now I know for next time. I have to spell it out very clearly to Moonie, like I'm talking to a child. Since he's a member of the left I should also have recognized that he wouldn't be thinking any further out than his 3 feet of personal space. Because to the left today it's all about "ME, ME, ME. What are you doing for ME?" Public policy is apparently some abstract concept to them that they can't quite grap. It's a bigger picture that goes beyond the bounds of their own personal considerations and often prioritizes them last instead of first.

M: Hehe, why should you be the only one to transfer your issues on others. You have so many more than I, it is much better for you to be on your end of this deal, except of course for how foolish you make your own self look. The mistake you made is to think that because I know something about me means I don't know you. No I know you far better than you do. I paid a far greater tuition and went to a much better school.

There's no tuition, Moonie. It's really nothing but a student loan and we all go to the same school. You get your value out of it and then pay it back as best you can.

Maybe when you start picking up on that you'll truly begin learning? First you'll need to break out of that protective shell you've built around yourself though. As stupidly thick as yours is that may never happen though.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe when you start picking up on that you'll truly begin learning? First you'll need to break out of that protective shell you've built around yourself though. As stupidly thick as yours is that may never happen though.

Ironic statement of the day coming from someone who's built up a ridiculously stupid stereotype of the "left" that can only serve as a "protective shell". Here's a hint: you don't make very convincing arguments when you assume that the person you're debating with is stupid.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe when you start picking up on that you'll truly begin learning? First you'll need to break out of that protective shell you've built around yourself though. As stupidly thick as yours is that may never happen though.

Ironic statement of the day coming from someone who's built up a ridiculously stupid stereotype of the "left" that can only serve as a "protective shell". Here's a hint: you don't make very convincing arguments when you assume that the person you're debating with is stupid.

So then you would have to agree that Moonie doesn't make a very convincing argument either, or risk being ironic yourself.

So many are full of it in this forum...irony, that is.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't believe I've ever run across a dumber group of people than the BDS crew that infests this forum.

Yes, science uses facts to make predictions. That works fine when we have those facts.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS ON GW TO MAKE ANY DECENTLY VALID PREDICTIONS YET.

yes, we do. Burrying your head in the sand does not make that less true.

 

[Comanche]

Folks have been trying to predict the future since the dawn of man. And many times, in the name of science they have failed because they were talking before they knew very much about it. Everything from the descent of man to the availability of flight. Wibur Wright predicted after a failed attemp that there would not be flight for 50 years.

The problem that we have now it that people are successfully scaring the masses with thier predictions of GW: Sea levels rising (people drowning), rising temps (people dieing from heat) and on and on.

There is an interesting read here --

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3225...tions-about-the-Future

I would suggest that we postpone this discussion until the next solar cycle which is predicted to be the weakest in a couple hundred years by physicists who have been getting it right for a couple of hundred years. Otherwise this humorous name calling will continue for no reason.