Professor criticized for course denying climate change
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
SoCurious
Jedi Master
Ironic or not, it should be understood that scientists are skeptical of any Climate Change denialists as they have a history of being funded by big business who would hate to have their quest for profit unfortunately interrupted by something as inconsiderate as a global catastrophe. Religious fundamentalists who think that God will protect them from disaster are automatic denialists, and economist thinking politicians would hate to deal with a world that would have to change its economic behaviour. All these people have denied climate change and challenged science.
Scientists cannot have that and are understandably protecting their turf and the only realistic conclusions they can infer from the data they have at hand. Until there is an undeniable set of data that proves otherwise we can expect more such attacks.
Even if we are only contributing 4% to Climate Change, isn't it possible that this represents the final straw on the camel's back?
I wouldn't want to change science's viewpoint at this stage either. The best chance of imminent societal change for the better hinges on the presumption that we're about to destroy ourselves and should therefore change our thinking and way of life.
This is not the time to play "I told you so". It is a time for change. An outlook that is kinder to nature is kinder to ourselves and may ultimately result in a mind-change of such proportions that dna itself is altered. If this were to happen I'm sure we'd be pleasantly surprised to find more surfers on the wave.
Whatever the truth is, Climate Change seems to have woken up a lot of people to a certain level of awareness. May it continue to do so.
Scientists cannot have that and are understandably protecting their turf and the only realistic conclusions they can infer from the data they have at hand. Until there is an undeniable set of data that proves otherwise we can expect more such attacks.
Even if we are only contributing 4% to Climate Change, isn't it possible that this represents the final straw on the camel's back?
I wouldn't want to change science's viewpoint at this stage either. The best chance of imminent societal change for the better hinges on the presumption that we're about to destroy ourselves and should therefore change our thinking and way of life.
This is not the time to play "I told you so". It is a time for change. An outlook that is kinder to nature is kinder to ourselves and may ultimately result in a mind-change of such proportions that dna itself is altered. If this were to happen I'm sure we'd be pleasantly surprised to find more surfers on the wave.
Whatever the truth is, Climate Change seems to have woken up a lot of people to a certain level of awareness. May it continue to do so.
Richard said:
Which means that many of them are consciously lying which suggests pathology. (Which can be simply extreme self-interest.)
Richard said:
Actually, they are pushing the destruction of Earth to "initiate the Eschaton" so they aren't so much deniers as pathological.
Richard said:
You are assuming that they are just ordinary folks like yourself? Think again. This is driven by pathology; greed is a sickness.
Richard said:
Are you including the scientists you listed above as promoters of climate change as deniers now? Muddy thinking!
Richard said:
Actually, no, they are not inferring from the data, they are consciously cooking the data and there is plenty of evidence of that already out there.
Richard said:
Not likely.
Richard said:
Mainstream science is corrupt to the core. That's the bottom line.
Richard said:
What does that have to do with any of the above?
Richard said:
Believing lies is worse than ignorance.
SoCurious
Jedi Master
Yes. Everyone who is consciously lying, scientists or other, are indicating extreme self-interest or possibly psychopathy.
Most definitely. Not all of them are pathological however. Plenty simply believe what they're taught in their churches or bible studies or other classes of religious indoctrination. They're either pathological or just really dumb. Surely those who are agitating for armageddon are relatively few in numbers (although large in power)?
Yes, for sure. Especially, it seems in the US. But in other places in the world there are politicians who genuinely work for society rather than themselves. Their biggest shortcoming is that they believe in the capitalist system. Myopic but not pathological. Many years ago we had a Member of Parliament who worked for us in the afternoons after session. He needed the money because he was always giving his salary to his constituents who were in need. I'm sorry to say he died in a car accident.
No, I'm not including the scientists. Those who were promoters of climate change still are. Some who were deniers have changed their tune, and that I admit does concern me that they may have changed because of third party influence. People such as Dr. Richard Muller who were thought to be climate deniers and decided the evidence pointed in the other direction.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/04/06/global-warming-skeptic-changes-his-tune/
This is really difficult. The charges of cooking are made by both camps, although the deniers just seem to ignore the data in totality. I did read somewhere that 100% of scientists agreed there is climate change - only 98% believed it was man-made. Laura, I don't know the truth of the matter here except in my experience people go to great lengths to "prove" their emotionally based viewpoints. If I was to have all the data I'm sure I'd come to the same conclusions as the scientists - but because I didn't collect all the data myself I'd be hesitant to call it the "gospel truth" (how ugly that phrase is).
For those scientists who are looking to the solar system to confirm their hypotheses of extraplanetary influences, I wish them well and hope they find their proofs soon. Validation is a wonderful thing.
You're right - it's not likely.
Yes, that's true. And you can add egotistical and craven to the charges. Yet there still remain the honest mavericks and those who quest for truth. Like most organizations the corruption starts at the top.
Whether human intervention is responsible for climate change or not is not the point here. The point is that it often takes enormous stress to encourage change. People who close their eyes to change have no chance.
I don't understand. Is climate change not happening?
Climate change is definitely happening and even global warming.... but global warming always precedes sharp and sudden long-term global cooling.
I meant that the people who think global warming is the be-all and end-all are in worse shape than those people who have no opinion on the matter because they have followed the liars and won't hear any warnings about preparing for an Ice Age.
I meant that the people who think global warming is the be-all and end-all are in worse shape than those people who have no opinion on the matter because they have followed the liars and won't hear any warnings about preparing for an Ice Age.
SoCurious
Jedi Master
The sad thing is that the only people who will be fully prepared for an ice-age are those who have already prepared underground bases ie the very same psychopathic ruling class ignoring all the warnings in public so they can continue with "business as usual". If anyone else prepared in the same way they would immediately be labelled "cult" in France and weird anywhere else.
I think the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming scam is a multi-faceted manifestation of pathologies and the overall ponerization and corruption of science. There's also the part of the scam to do with "carbon taxes" and securities exchanges set up for the whole carbon trading thing (with the largest players being the usual psychopathic suspects, e.g. Goldman Sachs, et al) too.
Add to this the usual muddying of waters / twisting and distorting things into their opposites / distracting from VERY important matters and truths, and the whole thing is another demented deception of humanity. My 2 cents.
Add to this the usual muddying of waters / twisting and distorting things into their opposites / distracting from VERY important matters and truths, and the whole thing is another demented deception of humanity. My 2 cents.
Richard said:
According to today’s article by Neela Banerjee, Mcclatchy News Service (see below), Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UCBerkeley and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, has reversed his position on global warming, now stating “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubts on the very existence of global warming. (In the past, Dr. Muller had criticized which global temperatures had been used in such research, contending that some monitoring stations provided inaccurate data.) Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I am now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/sections/news/nation-world-news/prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong.html
SoCurious
Jedi Master
This is the same man who looked into mass extinction events and periodicity. Laura mentions him here http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/03/forget-about-global-warming-were-one.html
I'd like to suggest that perhaps Prof. Muller is a completely honest man interpreting data available to him as best he can. It's entirely possible that in the first instance when he denied climate change he was looking at figures completely different to those that made him change his mind later. To make an about turn like that would also suggest honesty. "Facts before opinion".
Who's best interests are served by denying climate change? I may be looking at this too simply but it makes sense that the people who stand to gain most by denying man-made climate change are the people who benefit most from practices that pollute the atmostphere and oceans and rape the lands. In other words the energy companies, industrialists, politicians who need business to carry on 'as usual' - ie the PTB. It would be their knee-jerk reaction and Prof. Muller would now be on their hit lists whereas before he would have been their darling.
I would think there's a good chance that Prof. Muller relies mostly on data at hand to reach his conclusions, in which case I feel sorry for him when he discovers data pointing to solar and other influences. He'll have to retract for a second time.
Perhaps someone knows him better?
I'd like to suggest that perhaps Prof. Muller is a completely honest man interpreting data available to him as best he can. It's entirely possible that in the first instance when he denied climate change he was looking at figures completely different to those that made him change his mind later. To make an about turn like that would also suggest honesty. "Facts before opinion".
Who's best interests are served by denying climate change? I may be looking at this too simply but it makes sense that the people who stand to gain most by denying man-made climate change are the people who benefit most from practices that pollute the atmostphere and oceans and rape the lands. In other words the energy companies, industrialists, politicians who need business to carry on 'as usual' - ie the PTB. It would be their knee-jerk reaction and Prof. Muller would now be on their hit lists whereas before he would have been their darling.
I would think there's a good chance that Prof. Muller relies mostly on data at hand to reach his conclusions, in which case I feel sorry for him when he discovers data pointing to solar and other influences. He'll have to retract for a second time.
Perhaps someone knows him better?
[quote author=Richard]
I'd like to suggest that perhaps Prof. Muller is a completely honest man interpreting data available to him as best he can. It's entirely possible that in the first instance when he denied climate change he was looking at figures completely different to those that made him change his mind later. To make an about turn like that would also suggest honesty. "Facts before opinion".
I would think there's a good chance that Prof. Muller relies mostly on data at hand to reach his conclusions, in which case I feel sorry for him when he discovers data pointing to solar and other influences. He'll have to retract for a second time.
[/quote]
In which case the best that we can say about him is that is not a particularly intelligent or even scientific man, and is not deserving of his position. I feel sorry for the brilliant scientists who will never find themselves in such a position because the system does not allow it.
I'd like to suggest that perhaps Prof. Muller is a completely honest man interpreting data available to him as best he can. It's entirely possible that in the first instance when he denied climate change he was looking at figures completely different to those that made him change his mind later. To make an about turn like that would also suggest honesty. "Facts before opinion".
I would think there's a good chance that Prof. Muller relies mostly on data at hand to reach his conclusions, in which case I feel sorry for him when he discovers data pointing to solar and other influences. He'll have to retract for a second time.
[/quote]
In which case the best that we can say about him is that is not a particularly intelligent or even scientific man, and is not deserving of his position. I feel sorry for the brilliant scientists who will never find themselves in such a position because the system does not allow it.
