Archive for Earth Sciences Forum This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!!
 



       Earth Sciences Forum Forum Index -> Discussion
scpg02

Gore: Polluters Manipulate Climate Info

Well now isn't this the pot calling the kettle black!

Gore: Polluters Manipulate Climate Info

By GILLIAN WONG

Quote:
SINGAPORE (AP) - Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world's largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."

Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking's harmful effects.

"This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science," Gore said. "We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion."


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070807/D8QS3JEO0.html
NileQueen

Yes he is certainly talking about his own propaganda machine in that last bit.

Disagreement is part of the scientific process.
Andre

NileQueen wrote:
Disagreement is part of the scientific process.


Exactly, to put it more elaborate:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/...15/hot_tempers_on_global_warming/

Quote:
...why is the tone of Sharon Begley's cover story -- nine pages in which anyone skeptical of the claim that human activity is causing global warming is painted as a bought-and-paid-for lackey of the coal and oil industries -- so strident and censorious? Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? Do Newsweek and Begley really believe that everyone who dissents from the global-warming doomsaying does so in bad faith?

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy -- as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced.
Latecommer

To this very point, I have some interesting quotes gleaned from Jaworowski "CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time"

Maurice Strong: longtime enviromentalist, New Age proponent, former advisor to Kofi Annan, Chair of the Un Conference on Enviroment and Developement, and one of those responsible for writing the Kyoto Protocol.

"We may get to the point when the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse"

Timothy Wirth, US undersecretary of State for Global Issues:

"We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economical policy and environmental policy"

Richard Benedick, deputy assistant secretary of state:

"A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the enhanced greenhouse effect"

These are people in position to make drastic and probably disasterous discisions the world will have to live with. And they seem to be getting more up front with their post modernist thinking and agenda.

These are people who are obviously trying to use the cover of science to achieve an agenda. They seem, by their words, to be ready to go on even if they do not get this approval from science. To that end they seem to have gathered a number of scientists willing to sell their souls to the movement.
Do these "scientists" sleep well knowing that they have vastly overstated the case, or perhaps even manipulated the "means" (pun inteneded) to produce the ends desired?

For me, to do such a thing, would mean an end of considering myself a scientist. There is a purity in this honorable profession that is not for sale....it can only be thrown away , perhaps never to be recovered.
scpg02

Latecommer wrote:
Do these "scientists" sleep well knowing that they have vastly overstated the case, or perhaps even manipulated the "means" (pun inteneded) to produce the ends desired?


Yeah because they will hold the same political beliefs. The will firmly believe they are doing the right thing and sleep like babies in their self-righteousness.

       Earth Sciences Forum Forum Index -> Discussion
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Debt Consolidation|Debt Consolidation|Kamala HarrisDebt Consolidation|Myspace Friend Train|Acs Student Loans