This one starts slow, but then gets to the heart of the matter, EM fancies he is
"pointing out the hypocrisies of both sides of our system" and he "would simply like both sides to be less quick to the trigger" he also resents that there's "no concessions from market intervention thinkers" and seems to defend "special interest groups" to "protect their(s)."
Unfortunately he loses sight of the difference between building your case on objective verifiable science and building your case on fabricated story telling and misrepresenting the truth.
Oh and Yes. There are objective truths out there we had better heed or expect to be bit. Not many links in this installment, though at the end I have added a 'Tillerson EXXON collection' of links to informative articles.
_____________________________________________________________
EM’s point #6, quoting me: “I’m curious have you listened to any climate scientist lectures, such as UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Sciences?”
EM responds: again, not denying any of this.
_______________________________________
I’m afraid your easy dismissal indicates you don’t know the half of it.
Worse your other words project an attitude that you think climate scientists don’t either.
________________________________________________________
EM’s point #7, quoting me: “On one side we have scientists who have dedicated themselves to understanding how our planet operates and doing so as accurately as possible. They are reporting on what their instruments and evidence is telling them.”
EM responds: Still not denying science…
_______________________________________
Lip service.
Read on, you wind up implying that science is up for negotiation and compromise if that science interferes with economic ‘needs.’
________________________________________________________
EM’s point #8, quoting me: “On the other side we have a small group of right-wing politically motivated outlier scientists, supported by a “think tanks” network which was created by some very wealthy, and oil drenched special interests and their bought Republican (and libertarian) politicians.”
EM responds: Political polarization at its finest. I don’t think this minority of “outlier scientists” supported by free market think tanks should come as any surprise to anyone.
_______________________________________
That’s not the point. The point is dishonesty; with malicious intent; constructing a disconnected from physical reality alternate universe of words and ideas. One where facts are bent, distorted, deleted or fabricated to suit.
Tailor made for winning political contests rather than constructive honest learning. You might find it self-evident and forgivable business instinct, I call it criminal and traitorous to our children.
________________________________________________________
EM responds: An entire industry is being threatened and so is a lot of wealth. The reality of the situation is that the livelihood of many, many Americans (approximately 170,000) is threatened by regulations on the oil and gas industry alone. So, yes, there are special interest groups that exist to protect their, wait for it, interests.
_______________________________________
I’d have thought it was a lot more than that. Still, you say you understand the science, yet you can come up with a line like that?
Our fossil fuels industry with it’s hundreds of thousands of people who depend on it’s income and further billions who depend on its heat and power and the economy we’ve build around it remain vulnerable and dependent on the weather.
Our society developed within a certain climate regime, it is not prepared for a radically different regime of hot temperature extremes, droughts, deluges and wind events the likes of which are only hinted at by today's events.
The path you are advocating is akin to the snake eating itself.
________________________________________________________
EM responds: These groups know that there will be no concessions from the market intervention thinkers, so in a time where the federal government has largely consisted of these thinkers (and executive orders, no less). They’ve resorted to denial in order to fight legislation, which in and of itself is tragic.
EM’s point #9, quoting me: “Sad thing is I don’t believe you rely on real experts. I believe from the way you’re framing your argument, that you get all your news from within the Republican news feed and a narrow circle of outlier scientists who have made themselves irrelevant to the real science going on.”
EM responds: Again, broad assumptions about my world knowledge. I will start with the (individual) news research process, especially in our current news environment. I usually start with daily headlines from places like politico and realclear. I do like realclear, even with their slight-right slant, as they usually publish pretty detailed news stories from both major media outlets with varying political opinions (usually MSM media such as NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.). They also publish content from sources like The Atlantic and The Economist, which I feel offer much more substance than MSM outlets (especially their opinion pieces). In addition, they offer publications from academic and other journals that are vastly more detail and fact oriented than anything that can be found at the major outlets. I pride myself on knowing what both sides are saying about issues.
_______________________________________
Well that’s part of your problem, understanding climate science is not a football game, nor a game rhetorical oneupmanship.
You seem to rely on sources that look at everything like a media show, or game contest, more interested in controversy and copy sales than in any long term public education exercise.
I learned about climate science from high school science classes between ’69-’73 and have been paying attention ever since. Always loved Earth's realities more than fictional story telling and Media marketing. Along with that foundation, for me its been a life time of books by scientists and science writers who were focused on explaining their science and of course periodicals such as Scientific American, ScienceNews, ScienceDaily - in my childhood there was Popular Science and Popular Mechanics thanks to my older brother’s subscriptions, and guess I shouldn't forget where it started, with grandma’s National Geographics.
With the coming of the internet’s YouTube the world of scientists giving lectures explaining their work has open up these past ten years. I’ve easily watched over a hundred, some a few times. The speed of internet information availability is also a total game changer these days. For a guy once used to finding stuff through card catalogues and those wonderful Reference Librarians of yore - I’m still amazed at the miraculous computer. But, I digress.
________________________________________________________
EM responds: I like to be able to point out the hypocrisies of both sides of our system, and you can’t construct your own world-view if you only understand one side of the thought process.
_______________________________________
Please explain to us the hypocrisy.
It seems to me that understand the “thought process” of others, does not mean accepting them, particularly if they are built on lies and deception.
On one side of this “argument” we have a global community of very smart, competitive, skeptical individuals, who are dedicated to learning about this world and their respective fields of inquiry. While Republican types can’t fathom it, learning honestly and as accurately and completely as possible is their job and main goal. Sure you can find some examples of unfit scientists, but I bet I’ll be able to show you how they were exposed by other scientists going about their quality work. Within the halls of science truth outs in the end.
In contrast, on the other side we the Republicans and their financiers who make no bones about their dedication to self-interest and a ruthless political agenda. Objectively, honestly learning about the science has nothing to with their mission statements. You just need to look at Heartland’s NIPCC, who are tasked with poking holes, no matter how irrelevant or even fabricated they may be. It’s all about sowing doubt, nothing about constructive learning.
Now EM, please explain, who’s hypocrisy?
________________________________________________________
EM’s point #10, quoting me: “Sentences like that (that would be: “However, it is far from true that we know all we can know about climate change, its long-term effects, and our role in its prevention.”) are so fundamentally dishonest its ridiculous but such are the tactics that have squandered precious time we don’t have to waste.
EM responds: Woah, it’s dishonest to say we don’t know all we can? I’m not squandering precious time or justifying inaction in anyway. Simply an observation (and a fact).
_______________________________________
It’s dishonest because you’re using it as code talk for ‘we need to learn more because we still don’t understand what’s going on enough to act`.’ That is patently false.
Don’t kid yourself, us even having this kind of discussion in 2017 is nothing but squandering yet more precious time. Ever hear the term: “The runway behind you doesn’t do you any good?” Think on it.
________________________________________________________
EM’s point #11, quoting me: Dude, name one serious scientist who says we know all we can about manmade global warming and the climate changes it drives, or the full extent of long-term effects? We do know an awful lot. What we don’t know is about fringe details that are of no-count to the fundamental reality of what we are doing to our Earth and today’s life supporting biosphere. Oh and we certainly do know what our role in its prevention would need to be. Drastically reducing the amount of Greenhouse Gases we inject into our atmosphere. It really is that simple!”
EM responds: Zero. There are none, so again, calling me disingenuous for literally referencing this fact is a weak argument at best, and highly ignorant at worst.
_______________________________________
Come on, it is disingenuous. Heck you couldn’t even acknowledge the sentence I made bold this time around. We still have more to learn about aeronautics, but that doesn’t stop tens of thousands from flying everyday.
We know a hell of a lot more about our global climate engine than we don’t know, plain and simple! Until you can say that loud and with conviction, you are in denial.
________________________________________________________
EM responds: I ask you this: how? How do we, as the United States of America, drastically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? What is your plan of action? Please, I would love to hear an explanation of how you would shape our energy policy in a way that would drastically reduce emissions.
_______________________________________
First answer me: What does having a solution have to do with honestly appraising the physical problem we are dealing with? Please that’s key, can you explain yourself?
Second question: How in the world do you think society can come up with viable solutions, when over half of the movers and shapers are denying that there even is a problem that needs attention?
“Firm action plan” needed, my foot. Consider the Atom Bomb project - you really think that started with a firm “action plan?” NO, it did not! There was a crisis that needed tackling. Only in tackling the problem in a for real concerted and focused effort, did all those unknowns get recognized and resolved, in time to keep the project moving forward.
All it takes is a genuine national recognition of the problem and then a dedication to resolving issues as they arise. That’s the American Way! But, instead we’ve developed a paradigm of endless back-stabbing and you wonder why it nothing is working?
________________________________________________________
EM’s point #12, quoting me: “Either you didn’t have the curious to go and read Issac Asimov’s essay, or it went right over your head. Try it again.
Hint, the essay is about the march of refinement of fact based understanding.”
EM responds: I did read it, and you assuming it went “right over my head” shows your arrogance. I understand exactly what he’s saying, that the science is not wrong, it is incomplete. This is literally my entire point, so thanks for helping me make it. Get over yourself and your reading comprehension; you aren’t my intellectual superior.
_______________________________________
When did I say I’m your intellectual superior? Don’t be so thin skinned. Lets focus on the words and the geophysical facts. To review;
EM, you originally responded.: I would simply like both sides to be less quick to the trigger. You speak about "rational constructive adult dialogue", but you immediately dismiss your opponents views as "self-serving faith giving them license to lie".
_______________________________________________________
EM, the Republican side is based on lies and misrepresenting the science and slandering the people who do the science! I've collected many many dozens of specific examples within this blog!
You remaining blind to the need for truth over self-serving lies
multiplied by millions IS THE PROBLEM OF OUR TIME.
It makes all solutions impossible and consigns us to an increasingly difficult world, to be followed by a truly hellish one. But many Republicans write that off because their personal God tells them that the Earth is supposed to be destroyed anyways. To them Earth was never there for anything other than its utter and complete consumption and nothing else. And to such poisoned souls we have handed our government.
We're getting a President who doesn’t know or care about the difference between a self-serving lie and objective truth. “Objective facts” means nothing to him, self-aggrandizement and making the deal are as far as his imagination goes. To drive home the hideousness, he want to make the climate science deny Tillerson, EXXON’s CEO and Russian loving, Secretary of State. How this can end well I can’t imagine.
________________________________________________________
Phone list of US Representatives for the 115th Congress
Address and list of US Senators for the 115th Congress
___________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Tips on Calling Your Member of Congress
When you dial 202-224-3121 you are directed to an operator at the Capitol switchboard. This switchboard can direct you to both senators as well as representatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment