![]() | ||
2011-01-13 03:56:23 | the AGW dialogue. . . please | |
citizenschallenge Peter Miesler citizenschallenge7@gmail... 166.164.131.178 |
background If anyone has any thoughts, critiques to share please do. Meditating on the roots of my irritation that occasionally poke through my posts (my apologies). I’ve come to focus on the disrespect and shallowness I perceive throughout sceptical points of denial, supporting arguments, and its avoidance of legitimate climate science findings. Beyond their handling of science, their handling of the critically important political question of how humanity will deal with our future is self centered and short sighted. All this is best exemplified by Republican’s inherent disregard for trying, even for a moment, to listen or directly acknowledge what the science is revealing. As though Republicans think this is a high school debate where it’s all about winning so that deflection of the scientist's message is all that matters. It’s a despicable tactic, developed by right wing think-tanks and then trickled down to the faithful - many who are religiously incapable of fathoming our Earth as a billions year old entity, so nothing about climate makes sense to them anyways. The problem is not science becoming religion. The problem is religion becoming business, and then anti-science, because the science is telling us we need to slow down. Which is the last thing Republicans are willing to face. Quite frankly that’s the dishonesty I speak of. Especially considering the magnitude for what we are knowingly doing to the very foundation of the nature we depend on. “Sceptics” hold such notions in hubris blinded contempt because their here and now addiction to consumption remains sacrosanct. The dialogue has snagged on that crucial point. The real problem is the lack of Good Faith offered from the “sceptical” quarter. For them it’s all about war and victory. Given political and media realities looks like those folks will win the war, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. | |
2011-01-13 15:12:46 | "The game is rigged" | |
citizenschallenge Peter Miesler citizenschallenge7@gmail... 96.14.57.37 |
I hope you don't mind me adding the following exchange, it's actually from a different thread but it is wrestling with the same critter. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
reply post: The problem with that idea is that one side gets to make and enforce the rules for the other side. The benchmarks are all designed with a given outcome in mind. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ my reply:
Especially since the Earth Observation data fully supports mainstream climate science findings. For instance it is fine and dandy to say, oh no particular storm can be attributed to global warming, yet the unmistakable up tick in major 100, 500, even 1000 years weather events really should act as a wake up call that something very major is underway and that its trajectory is heading in a bad direction for us ~ considering how totally dependent humanity is upon a hospitable climate. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I believe my opening statement accurately reflects the situation. Does anyone disagree? So how to deal with the built in paranoia, or war footing? I'm after hardball comments, even if you think I'm up a tree, I'd be interested in knowing that. ps. after writing this post, I added another comment to the above Skepticforum thread "Have you considered that the "benchmarks" are equal for both 'sides' ~ however that the contrarian 'side' really and truly has failed to achieve those benchmarks of scientific voracity? | |
2011-01-14 13:16:47 | please | |
citizenschallenge Peter Miesler citizenschallenge7@gmail... 166.164.136.99 |
excuse a bit more bio here sincerely, peterm |