Listener Round Table

[Muadib]

look over the link and get back to me.

We've been over it, not going there with you. You act like it's a proven fact that NOAA manipulates data and it's just not, the only people saying that are yourself and the other global warming deniers. Find me a site that isn't a global warming denier site that says that NOAA is manipulating data and then I'll take a look at it. ClimateGate just doesn't hold up, sorry.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

If you do google Goddard and climate change, you might get Dick. Which is to say, Dick Goddard. The resulting content will be pretty similar.

I'm not participating in the madness that is this discussion, but I thought Muadib might be interested in this article from a few years ago in the Plain Dealer. It really speaks to the core of why there's a debate, at all -- a basic disagreement over what qualifies and quantifies the notion of evidence. With that basic disagreement, there is no ground to be gained in an argument about the topic.

Here are the common rebuttals to many of the myths and misconceptions good intentioned folks like Mr. Goddard (Dick) fall back on.

 

[Muadib]

If you do google Goddard and climate change, you might get Dick. Which is to say, Dick Goddard. The resulting content will be pretty similar.

I'm not participating in the madness that is this discussion, but I thought Muadib might be interested in this article from a few years ago in the Plain Dealer. It really speaks to the core of why there's a debate, at all -- a basic disagreement over what qualifies and quantifies the notion of evidence. With that basic disagreement, there is no ground to be gained in an argument about the topic.

Here are the common rebuttals to many of the myths and misconceptions good intentioned folks like Mr. Goddard (Dick) fall back on.

Yeah, I hear you and I'm really not trying to debate this, like I said it was done to death in the Global Warming thread we had last year. However, when I see erroneous information, I feel compelled to present the other side. I agree that there isn't really any progress to be made with the deniers, it's more for people who haven't yet made up their mind. Thanks for posting that article I'll be sure to check it out.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I mean, clearly I have a side. I posted the above, mostly for Maudib, to illustrate the pointlessness of the debate. Each side qualifies evidence in different ways. Without being able to agree on what constitutes evidence, there is no debate. There are no argumentative exhibits. There are no mutual points of reference. There is only two people who both think the other believes in stupid shit. There's just nowhere to go from there but around and around.

We all fall down.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Do you think there are people who haven't made up their minds? I ask sincerely.

I kind of doubt it, on my end. I think it's like "undecided voters." I don't think it's a thing.

 

[Muadib]

Do you think there are people who haven't made up their minds? I ask sincerely.

I kind of doubt it, on my end. I think it's like "undecided voters." I don't think it's a thing.

I think it depends on different factors, like education level and age, but yeah I think there are some people who may be undecided or just leaning slightly one way or the other and are open to looking at the evidence from both sides. I was in that position not that long ago and what I found consistently is that, in my opinion, the pro AGW side has a better documented case with more evidence and actual research than the so called "skeptical" side. Combine that with the fact that every time I see one of these skeptics presented as evidence and I check them out, I find one of two things almost every time, and two things most of the time, 1. that they aren't climate scientists and 2. they're on the payroll of some big time oil conglomerate or a committee that's connected to an oil company.

There's also the fact that I see many parallels between global warming deniers and the whole creationism debate, both of them don't do any real research themselves, they just attack the data and conclusions of the people that do. They aren't out there trying to really disprove global warming by doing the work to come up with new evidence and data that backs all of the 60 different red herring theories they throw out to cloud the issue. It's the same tactics repeated on a different subject.

There's that and there's the whole common sense issue on top of that, if I'm going to plan out how to wire a new building, am I going to call a climate scientist or an electrical engineer? The answer is obvious, so why shouldn't it be obvious when it's reversed? Why would I get my information on climate science from an electrical engineer as opposed to someone who actually works in the field and knows what they're doing? To me, it's a no brainer.

I don't think there's anything wrong with skepticism, it's when it turns into denial that there's a problem. Now I'm going to put my soap box away and stay out of this thread as much as possible because it is rather pointless...

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Fair enough.

I guess I just don't feel, based on nothing but personal experience, that there are people really out there looking to do research in one direction or the other if it isn't a professional requirement. The ones who are interested enough to do research come about things organically, over a decent period of time. Even these people, though, tend have an informed(relatively) bias early on. Like, I've never met the dude who said, "I don't know if I believe/disbelieve in X, but I've downloaded a dozen or so scientific journal papers on the subject, I'm prepared to cross reference information that I don't understand with third party reference material, and am looking to make a decision by the end of the month." It's almost always "I believe/disbelieve in X," most often followed by an inability to answer fundamental questions regarding the subject matter -- that's when it's not "I don't really care."

I guess, in my cynical worldview, to think that there are people who are genuinely "undecided" about something is to give people, in general, too much credit. You either care enough to do research, of whatever type you qualify as sufficient, and make a decision, or you don't. If you don't, you may still even have a vocal opinion when asked, you just can't really reference why you have that opinion. On the other hand, you may have no opinion at all; your declaration of a lack of decided opinion just being a pretty way of saying that you couldn't really give less of a shit.
All of that said, I've literally never met a person who was undecided about a mainstream issue. In my experience, when people have no opinion it's because they were entirely unaware of the subject in question.

I'd like to think you're right, though, and the situation you described isn't mythical. It would be pretty cool.

 

[Muadib]

Maybe I'm just an oddball, it's entirely possible, but I really was undecided, one way or the other when I was younger. It's not that I hadn't heard about the issue, I had, it's more that I was never confronted with the other side of the issue, the skeptical side. When that happened, I decided to listen to what they were saying and do some checking of my own, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove that they're full of it, and in my experience, the deniers were full of it.

Like I said in my earlier post though, if someone does some actual groundbreaking research and proves one of these alternative theories, I have an open mind to look at their evidence and their conclusions, I just don't see that so far. It's all about attacking science and talking about the politics surrounding the issue, which can be f'd up, but that doesn't disprove the science behind it, in my opinion. My opinion is not set in stone but saying "it might be this..." or "it might be that.." isn't falsification, it's just spouting off at the mouth with unproven conclusions, and in the meantime, the evidence that we're having a negative effect on our environment just keeps piling up.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Maybe I'm just an oddball, it's entirely possible, but I really was undecided, one way or the other when I was younger. It's not that I hadn't heard about the issue, I had, it's more that I was never confronted with the other side of the issue, the skeptical side. When that happened, I decided to listen to what they were saying and do some checking of my own, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove that they're full of it, and in my experience, the deniers were full of it.

OK, I see what you're saying. I guess I qualify that as informed bias, in my explanation. You never suddenly stopped believing the original science just because someone suggested there were alternative hypotheses. In that sense, you weren't exactly undecided, you just had cause for skepticism regarding your held belief. Semantics, but it clarifies that we picture two different scenarios when someone says "undecided."

I picture an adult person who has read both sides of an issue, but still feels they can't quite make a decision until there is more evidence or a better worded argument presented. That's what I don't think exists. At least, the shaky evidence of personal experience leads me to that informal assumption.

 

[boomerang]

Hey, does anybody know a good forum where they're talking about ghosts? Or the UFO mystery? Or any other paranormal phenomenon? I bet that would be a really cool forum. I guess I should go out and look for a forum like that.

Talking about UFO's and stuff like that, I really wanted to talk more about the future of UFO research on our Listener Round Table. One topic I think we really missed was that....what can we do to inject interest back into genuine UFO research? Does the information age that we now live in, lead to a dissolution of information, a short sightedness and small attention span that dilutes UFO research and leads to unfocused, untrained investigations? If so, how do we correct that? Or can we? Should we?

I guess we could not-so cleverly segue the global warming topic back to UFOs. But a better approach would be to schedule more roundtables based on talking points like these.

 

[Burnt State]

Everyday for millions of years things have gone extinct with no human influence. We are just as much a part of nature as any living thing here now and before us, we have a right to be here and some day we will go extinct as well. When we are gone the climate will continue to change, there will be global warming, global cooling, the tectonic plates will continue to move, continents will collide, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, wild fires, etc will all continue to happen even with no humans around. Please do not demonize humans, aside from our obvious problems we are still pretty cool life forms.

The history of humans has been bi-polar at best. We have been able to imagine a science that lets us see images all the way back to the big bang, talk about a bunch of space pornographers, but our net effect since industrialization has been to work against nature instead of with it. So while we're not all demons, we've mostly conceded a wasteful lifestyle that has poisoned the planet. Yes the planet will go on, perhaps the sooner we're gone the better so the planet can get her groove on again.

But we are not a volcano - we are much more treacherous than natural when it comes to how we treat all the other species of life. We're in it for ourselves and fuck the rest; in fact fuck any ocean, ecosystem or frog that tries to tell us different. Our species is an unforgiving murderous lot, who also can make great magic, tell beautiful stories and even express the divinity of nature without needing a god to be responsible for it. We travel in confused directions.

Is it too early to have a drink?

 

[Ufosopher]

Just getting into this episode. It's very nice to hear the voices behind our best posters. For those of you who've never heard of U.N. Agenda 21, some thoughts . . .

Agenda 21 is not complicated. Hatched by the United Nations in 1992, it's all about control; control of you. Wrap your collectivist control scheme in a green ribbon and people won't fear it. But you should.

Globalists want to control where and how you live, what you eat, how much water you use, how much fuel you use, how much electricity you use and how much property you can have. They wish to control the curriculum in public schools. They want to control land use, get you out of your wasteful automobile, control how much carbon dioxide you produce and get you into an energy-efficient apartment. No one needs a large lot and a large house, don't you know. Father of Agenda 21, former U.N. official Maurice Strong said, "The affluence of Americans is a threat to the planet." Oh yes, we overindulgent Americans are crowding together and creating havoc. I wonder if Mr. Strong has been to Montana? North or South Dakota? Wyoming or Texas? Nebraska? Kansas? What a crowded mess.

This is a liberty issue. Agenda 21 and other U.N. schemes (gun control) are liberty killers. Years ago, George H.W. Bush said a New World Order was coming. Well, it's here. Resist.

I agree 100%. Control is the issue, and it is coming at us from virtually every official direction, written by politicians who (like those that send other people's children to war) won't likely be effected by the laws they enact, who won't be forced to live in congestion, because money and advantaged placement in the hierarchy grants the fortunate few a pass. Agenda 21 comes from a perspective that sees the people as a mindless herd to be managed by physical and psychological barriers, rather than individual actors to be appealed to. Although we are both individuals and members of a collective, what we should be focused on, and sensitive to, is the fact that agendas which dehumanize a group ie. Nips, Gooks, Ragheads, The Herd, has historically always preceded and enabled the execution of atrocities.

 

[Ufosopher]

Really good show overall. Easily better than some of the tangent prone guests. However, the segment concerning the abduction enigma left me wanting to contribute some thoughts.

By virtue of the fact that abductions are closely related to the UFO phenomenon those of us interested in the latter are often exposed to short bits of data and conjecture about abductions. In my opinion this information does not constitute the in depth knowledge required to make a cogent assessment regarding the validity of individual claims, or the credibility of the subject as a whole. Yet, most often UFO Researchers are quick to raise doubt, and advise skepticism concerning claims by abductees. Please note, these very researchers often hold and support the theory that UFOs "probably" are not real nuts and bolts physical objects! What that makes them is not certain, but leading answers point to amorphous, other dimensional, trickster spirits as a possibility. A fairly wild claim in anyone's book. Still, and until recently I must include myself as one of those UFO researchers who are quick to dismiss abduction claims.

Listening to the round table answers to the abduction question yielded exactly what I would have said prior to a deeper study of the phenomenon. Much deeper then the peripheral exposure I was getting from my curiosity of the UFO media. After digesting the conclusions of David Jacobs, and Budd Hopkins, reading all three of Karla Turner's books, and reading over twenty five case studies, I can safely state that abductions have been and are occurring at a greater rate than most people would imagine. Also, many important aspects of the abduction phenomenon are not reported or are buried deep in the literature to avoid losing the audience of the material. Reviewing the abduction material is difficult for obvious reasons, the evidence forces much realignment of one's belief systems and therefore is taxing. However, I believe it is extremely important for UFO researchers to do this work for the amount of questions it will add to your investigation of the entire UFO subject. After all, the answers can only be reached by the proper configuration of questions.

Like in the study of UFOs there is a lot of chaff in abductions, just remember that it only takes 5% of sightings to be viable for us to believe in UFOs. I think most people will find it hard to so easily dismiss abduction claims after doing the research.

 

[pixelsmith]

I think it depends on different factors, like education level and age, but yeah I think there are some people who may be undecided or just leaning slightly one way or the other and are open to looking at the evidence from both sides. I was in that position not that long ago and what I found consistently is that, in my opinion, the pro AGW side has a better documented case with more evidence and actual research than the so called "skeptical" side. Combine that with the fact that every time I see one of these skeptics presented as evidence and I check them out, I find one of two things almost every time, and two things most of the time, 1. that they aren't climate scientists and 2. they're on the payroll of some big time oil conglomerate or a committee that's connected to an oil company.

There's also the fact that I see many parallels between global warming deniers and the whole creationism debate, both of them don't do any real research themselves, they just attack the data and conclusions of the people that do. They aren't out there trying to really disprove global warming by doing the work to come up with new evidence and data that backs all of the 60 different red herring theories they throw out to cloud the issue. It's the same tactics repeated on a different subject.

There's that and there's the whole common sense issue on top of that, if I'm going to plan out how to wire a new building, am I going to call a climate scientist or an electrical engineer? The answer is obvious, so why shouldn't it be obvious when it's reversed? Why would I get my information on climate science from an electrical engineer as opposed to someone who actually works in the field and knows what they're doing? To me, it's a no brainer.

I don't think there's anything wrong with skepticism, it's when it turns into denial that there's a problem. Now I'm going to put my soap box away and stay out of this thread as much as possible because it is rather pointless...

run away little man.

 

[Roro]

The conversation was remarkably civil considering the conversation on the forums often lacks civility.
I think Gene and Chris engineered the show to go smoothly by posing specific questions then giving each one a chance to respond without inviting them to interact with one another.
I'm saying this was a good thing. Good work Gene and Chris.

 

[Roro]

How is it easier to believe that there is some monolithic and secret group working to take away our rights by inventing data, and getting something like 97% of scientists to agree than it is that a powerful industry is feeding us propaganda in order to protect their profits?

This article from Forbes addresses the 97% myth.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes

Here is a sample.
"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists."

My current position is that climate change is real. The climate is always changing so it is changing now. It might get warmer, it might get colder.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

This article from Forbes addresses the 97% myth.

Eh.

 

[Frank Stalter]

This article from Forbes addresses the 97% myth.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes

Here is a sample.
"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists."

My current position is that climate change is real. The climate is always changing so it is changing now. It might get warmer, it might get colder.

The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, is probably not the best source to cite. There are good ones, but Heartland has a bias.

 

[Roro]

The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, is probably not the best source to cite. There are good ones, but Heartland has a bias.

That's the AGM response to every source and article that disagrees with their view point. Yet it's the AGM scientists that have verifiable scandals. It's fine for AGM scientists to have a bias and get paid for their work because they are on the side of good and right but the non-AGM scientists are on the side of bad and evil so unless they are doing their work for free in an absolute vacuum you can dismiss all their data.

Everyone is biased on both sides of this issue because everyone needs money to do research and live indoors and eat meals on a regular basis.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

The article I linked to explains that that is not the only response people have. The other is "that's not as good as it sounds, here's why." I am not arguing with you folkis. But, when you cite known myths and deceptively present5ed polls, you should probably know.