Don't support GW? Go to jail.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Evidence? Politicization? Um, dude, we're talking about politics. This is the Politics subforum.

I know that. But scientists don't think like politicians. I don't believe you can offer a political explanation for the widespread acceptance of global warming because scientific acceptance is not political.

 

Christ, two weeks ago you and Swansont insisted that contrary opinions be removed from a "science" global warming thread because only facts should be allowed (which I called odd because in fact that discussion is ruled by opinion -- one single opinion -- but whatever). I was told that if we wanted to discuss opinions on this subject, we should do so on the politics forum. Well here we are, expressing our opinions, and talking about politics. So give me a break, huh?

Link to the thread in question?

 

 

Well that is your opinion, and more power to you. But you propose that we decide that one opinion is to be used as the basis for the application of criminal penalties against any politician who does not carry out an aggressive promotion of that opinion.

 

I ask again, what's the rush? Staunch adherents of human contribution to global warming have, right here in this forum, spoken AGAINST the radically short time frames proposed by the likes of Al Gore. Why this desperate need to toss out the power of persuasion and reasoned discourse and just start throwing people in jail?

Because people might die.

 

Stop attacking the conclusion of Suzuki's argument when you really want to attack its premise. A simplistic version of the argument goes something like this:

 

Allowing the deaths of people (or the loss of their property) to occur willfully is a crime.

Politicians are allowing global warming to kill people and/or destroy their property.

Politicians are committing a crime.

 

You surely do not disagree with the first premise, but you disagree with the second because you do not believe global warming will kill people. So your real problem here is that Suzuki believes GW will result in the deaths and you don't. Those are both your opinions. Perhaps you'd like to argue the evidence with him.

 

 

Dr. Suzuki suggests that we leverage the faith he and his people have constructed in the presumption of humans being the primary cause of global warming by incarcerating politicians who do not conform to that faith. And if he gets his way, do not think for one moment that his success will be based on anything other than faith. Faith held by one group of people, over a different faith held by another.

Please stop torturing the word "faith." It's inhumane.

 

David Suzuki is proposing an action that is fascist in nature. And the ONLY reason you're letting him get away with it is that he's in favor of Global Warming.

 

I believe that was your purpose in bringing up this thread, and I still don't see how it follows from any of the evidence you have (or have not) brought. You cannot generalize our views of Suzuki as easily as that. You have no evidence to suggest that we think the way you believe we do.

[swansont]

Link to the thread in question?

 

I believe that discussion occurred in an admin thread on GW moderation (started on 12-28).

 

But the original statement ("you and Swansont insisted that contrary opinions be removed from a "science" global warming thread") mischaracterizes the situation. It's not that contrary opinion was removed, it was all opinion. Nobody's opinion matters in a science discussion. Whether CO2 levels are rising is not a matter of opinion. Whether temperatures are rising is not a matter of opinion. The insulating effect of CO2 is not a matter of opinion. These are all verifiable facts that can be ascertained through the process of scientific inquiry, as are the many other elements of the topic at hand.

 

If you make a claim, you had better be able to back it up with data. That's scientific debate/discussion.

 

edit to add: if people who disagree with some science go to the popular media to make their case, you can be pretty sure that the scientific part has ended. The media doesn't uncover new data. At that point it's a sales job. You go to the popular press because you can't come up with credible science, and the press is a sucker for "equal time."

[DrDNA]

You know, a lot of the nay sayers on the political right leaning side are convinced that Global Warming is nothing but a ploy by the socialist leaning left to gain control of the economy, industry and consequently power.

 

Just because someone cries wolf does not mean there is a wolf, but on the other hand, it does not mean that there is no wolf either.

 

The problem here is the messengers. Messengers like Al Gore, Suzuki, various high profile actors and musicians using their pulpits to communicate unverified information, the fear of immanent doom and now (apparently) intimidation.

 

In the other camp, the osctriches have their heads in the sand, fingers in ears and humming, claiming there is no wolf, convinced that the existance of global warming proponents proves that Ed Asner and his angry band of socialists are not be far behind and poised ready to take control of your money. My question is, are they or aren't they and how does that fit into the equation?

[Pangloss]

Wow. The above is a good example of how a person should not debate an issue. Talk about missing the point, failing to support, begging the question, strawman...

 

Guys... Is this some act or parady to get the membership to realize how stupid arguments don't convince anyone?

 

Wow. The above is a good example of how a person should not debate an issue. Talk about missing the point, failing to support, begging the question, strawman...

 

Guys... Is this some act or parady to get the membership to realize how stupid arguments don't convince anyone?

[iNow]

Wow. The above is a good example of how a person should not debate an issue. Talk about missing the point, failing to support, begging the question, strawman...

 

Guys... Is this some act or parady to get the membership to realize how stupid arguments don't convince anyone?

 

Way to lead by example, Pangloss.

 

 

Proud of yourself?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't know which one of you to fault for it, but I'd rather not see this escalate, please.

[Pangloss]

I know that. But scientists don't think like politicians. I don't believe you can offer a political explanation for the widespread acceptance of global warming because scientific acceptance is not political.

 

I disagree. I think scientific acceptance is often political. This is especially true in medicine right now -- look at all the drugs that get declared safe and effective only to find out later that they did absolutely nothing, or in fact actually HARMED people. You cannot tell me that there's no socio-political aspect to the drug approval process.

 

Note that I'm not saying that's wrong! Perhaps it is the best that it can be at the moment, given the need for long-term, high-patient-count studies. I'm just saying that there HAS to be a certain level of opinion and presumtiveness -- they guess.

 

And when guesses are being made, politics are most definitely in play. Always.

 

 

Link to the thread in question?

 

I bumped it on the mod board, but it's the one Swansont is talking about above.

 

 

Allowing the deaths of people (or the loss of their property) to occur willfully is a crime.

Politicians are allowing global warming to kill people and/or destroy their property.

Politicians are committing a crime.

 

You surely do not disagree with the first premise, but you disagree with the second because you do not believe global warming will kill people. So your real problem here is that Suzuki believes GW will result in the deaths and you don't. Those are both your opinions. Perhaps you'd like to argue the evidence with him.

 

No, that's not my position. Yes, I have a problem with the second premise, but not because I don't think global warming can or will kill people. What I think is that it has not been established that we can stop these presumed (and even likely) deaths by acting in the manner he proscribes. I've made this point several times now and I think you owe me a recognition of that important distinction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I disagree. I think scientific acceptance is often political. This is especially true in medicine right now -- look at all the drugs that get declared safe and effective only to find out later that they did absolutely nothing, or in fact actually HARMED people. You cannot tell me that there's no socio-political aspect to the drug approval process.

Okay. Now prove that there's a political aspect to the acceptance of climate change. And no, I don't mean acceptance by politicians. I mean acceptance by mainstream climate scientists.

 

And when guesses are being made, politics are most definitely in play. Always.

This does not necessarily apply to climate science, where sources of error can be identified and accounted for in the final results.

 

No, that's not my position. Yes, I have a problem with the second premise, but not because I don't think global warming can or will kill people. What I think is that it has not been established that we can stop these presumed (and even likely) deaths by acting in the manner he proscribes. I've made this point several times now and I think you owe me a recognition of that important distinction.

 

Is this because of your uncertainty of the anthropogenic portion of climate change, or because you may believe that climate change "remedies" won't work?

 

Just to be clear.

[Pangloss]

Okay. Now prove that there's a political aspect to the acceptance of climate change. And no, I don't mean acceptance by politicians. I mean acceptance by mainstream climate scientists.

 

Sure, I can just point out that the conclusion of human contribution to climate change is based on statistical correlations of data. They make the basic assumption that there are no additional variables worthy of contemplation.

 

We KNOW that we don't know all the variables, so we KNOW there is some degree of guesswork here. And as I said above, where there's guesswork, there's politics. Therefore there is a political aspect to the acceptance of human contribution to climate change. Q.E.D.

 

 

This does not necessarily apply to climate science, where sources of error can be identified and accounted for in the final results.

 

So they say. In fact what happens is more presumption and guesswork. We presume the variables to be accounted for when in fact we have no clue whether they are or not. Later when we find out they weren't we go back and modify the model and find out what the REAL situation was. But if Suzuki gets his way, by then, however, we've already jailed a politician for ten years for negligent homicide for not enacting legislation based on the earlier flawed model. Nice.

 

 

Is this because of your uncertainty of the anthropogenic portion of climate change, or because you may believe that climate change "remedies" won't work?

 

Just to be clear.

 

Because I don't believe their efficacy has been established to the degree of certainty necessary to obtain a legal conviction for not enacting them, resulting directly in negligent homicide.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sure, I can just point out that the conclusion of human contribution to climate change is based on statistical correlations of data. They make the basic assumption that there are no additional variables worthy of contemplation.

 

We KNOW that we don't know all the variables, so we KNOW there is some degree of guesswork here. And as I said above, where there's guesswork, there's politics. Therefore there is a political aspect to the acceptance of human contribution to climate change. Q.E.D.

Now you need to explain the leap from guesswork to politics.

 

So they say. In fact what happens is more presumption and guesswork. We presume the variables to be accounted for when in fact we have no clue whether they are or not. Later when we find out they weren't we go back and modify the model and find out what the REAL situation was. But if Suzuki gets his way, by then, however, we've already jailed a politician for ten years for negligent homicide for not enacting legislation based on the earlier flawed model. Nice.

This would be neatly resolved if you accepted that Suzuki was using rhetoric.

 

Regardless, I think you're overstating some of the uncertainties here. You're describing the situation with climate modeling, but I think that it's a near certainty that "greenhouse gases" really do what they're believed to do -- it's the extent of the damage that's uncertain.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what you guys mean by "rhetoric" in this thread. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

 

Regarding the uncertainties, I respect where you're coming from there, but I would just point out that when we're talking about jail time for negligent homicide, we really need to move past uncertainties -- the "shadow of a doubt", remember? Presumption of innocence? If I'm their lawyer all I need to do is point out that the IPCC said "likely", not "certain", and those "criminal" politicians are walking.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not sure what you guys mean by "rhetoric" in this thread. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Meaning that Suzuki might be threatening jail just to get politicians' hind ends in gear, not because he wants them in jail. It's a way of getting his point across -- an effective one at that.

 

Regarding the uncertainties, I respect where you're coming from there, but I would just point out that when we're talking about jail time for negligent homicide, we really need to move past uncertainties -- the "shadow of a doubt", remember? Presumption of innocence? If I'm their lawyer all I need to do is point out that the IPCC said "likely", not "certain", and those "criminal" politicians are walking.

Not "shadow of a doubt" -- "reasonable doubt". If I'm the prosecution I just dig up the part of the paper that says just how likely it is.

[jeskill]

No, that's not my position. Yes, I have a problem with the second premise, but not because I don't think global warming can or will kill people. What I think is that it has not been established that we can stop these presumed (and even likely) deaths by acting in the manner he proscribes. I've made this point several times now and I think you owe me a recognition of that important distinction.

 

Is "proscribe" a typo for prescribe, or did you actually mean, "denounce, banish, outlaw" etc.? I'm going to assume it's a typo, and that you meant prescribe in this post. Hopefully I won't make an a&& out of U and I. hahaha.

 

Sorry.

 

Anyways, if I'm to paraphrase your statement above, it seems that you're saying that his policy recommendations will not be effective. If this is the case, do you know what his policy recommendations are to alleviate climate change? I assure you, that they do not include "throw politicians in jail". If you go to his website, you'll see his views on the Kyoto Protocol, and the actions he believes are necessary to ratify it. He doesn't say anything in there about throwing politicians in jail, btw. Hence my belief that it was rhetoric --

"language used to persuade". He does believe that the Kyoto Protocol should be ratified, and he does talk about the solutions he thinks will help ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

 

Now, it would be a VERY interesting discussion if you wished to argue the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol's policy actions, or the actual solutions that Suzuki prescribes in his website. But this whole "politicians going to jail" thing is somewhat of a red herring (in my opinion) and detracts from what really should be discussed.

[swansont]

I'm not sure what you guys mean by "rhetoric" in this thread. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

 

rhetoric (noun):

 

-the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques

-language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking sincerity or meaningful content.

 

(from whatever dictionary is on my computer)

 

Regarding the uncertainties, I respect where you're coming from there, but I would just point out that when we're talking about jail time for negligent homicide, we really need to move past uncertainties -- the "shadow of a doubt", remember? Presumption of innocence? If I'm their lawyer all I need to do is point out that the IPCC said "likely", not "certain", and those "criminal" politicians are walking.

 

Science is not the same as the legal system; the standards and terminology are different (and it's reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence, depending on whether it's criminal or civil, in the US). This is the same tactic that people like Phillip Johnson try and exploit with creationism. It's equivocation.

 

And "we" aren't talking about jail time, you are. Several of us are assuming it was rhetoric. Someone saying, "There oughta be a law" isn't necessarily proposing actual legislation.

 

Sure, I can just point out that the conclusion of human contribution to climate change is based on statistical correlations of data. They make the basic assumption that there are no additional variables worthy of contemplation.

 

We KNOW that we don't know all the variables, so we KNOW there is some degree of guesswork here. And as I said above, where there's guesswork, there's politics. Therefore there is a political aspect to the acceptance of human contribution to climate change. Q.E.D.

 

Despite the pejorative nature of "some degree of guesswork" it doesn't mean that any conclusion at all can be drawn. You can and do quantify the uncertainties, and you can exclude some results. All of science is like this; GW isn't some special case.

 

I disagree. I think scientific acceptance is often political. This is especially true in medicine right now -- look at all the drugs that get declared safe and effective only to find out later that they did absolutely nothing, or in fact actually HARMED people. You cannot tell me that there's no socio-political aspect to the drug approval process.

 

Name some, that point out the political aspect of this, rather than the statistical nature of medical trials. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "political."

[Pangloss]

rhetoric (noun):

 

-the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques

-language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but is often regarded as lacking sincerity or meaningful content.

 

(from whatever dictionary is on my computer)

 

 

I asked what people meant by rhetoric in context here, not for a definition (thanks Cap'n, at least somebody was helpful there). If half the responders are just gonna be a jerk about this, or split hairs or "drown me out", I see no point in continuing. Ridicule and derision are not the same as logic and reason.

 

I believe I've raised reasonable concerns here. Most of you disagree. Some of you don't. Far as I'm concerned, that's a successful thread, and I'm movin' on.

[swansont]

I asked what people meant by rhetoric in context here, not for a definition (thanks Cap'n, at least somebody was helpful there). If half the responders are just gonna be a jerk about this, or split hairs or "drown me out", I see no point in continuing. Ridicule and derision are not the same as logic and reason.

 

My point was that the use of rhetoric was exactly in line with the definition one finds in a dictionary. And if you're going to complain about people being jerks, perhaps it's best to leave the condescension and derision out of your own posts. As far as I can tell all that's happened is that some people had the temerity to disagree with you. As for the rest ... pot, kettle, black.

[ParanoiA]

And "we" aren't talking about jail time, you are. Several of us are assuming it was rhetoric. Someone saying, "There oughta be a law" isn't necessarily proposing actual legislation.

 

This lies at the heart of the matter, if I'm reading Pangloss correctly. You see it conveniently as "rhetoric" with no weight worth debating about - I believe this is because it's a cause you agree with. Period.

 

Pangloss, and I, and...nobody else I guess...see the hypocritical nature of the your's and the board's essential wholesale labeling of this as harmless rhetoric. If we were talking about a prominent, religious leader advocating criminal charges for those guilty of "creationism defiance", this board would be lit up with emotional charge after emotional charge. Somehow, I don't think the "harmless" would quite make it...

[swansont]

This lies at the heart of the matter, if I'm reading Pangloss correctly. You see it conveniently as "rhetoric" with no weight worth debating about - I believe this is because it's a cause you agree with. Period.

 

No, I disagree. I gave the example of "surrender to terrorists" earlier. I don't really believe that a democrat will literally sign surrender papers to a terrorist group should they win election to office. I recognize that as rhetoric for "democrats are weak on homeland security" even though I am more prone to agreeing with democrats on many issues.

 

Pangloss, and I, and...nobody else I guess...see the hypocritical nature of the your's and the board's essential wholesale labeling of this as harmless rhetoric. If we were talking about a prominent, religious leader advocating criminal charges for those guilty of "creationism defiance", this board would be lit up with emotional charge after emotional charge. Somehow, I don't think the "harmless" would quite make it...

 

Actually I doubt it, because it's generally recognized how much blather issues forth from creationists. And it's not like this is a mere hypothetical case — they proclaim far worse than criminal charges. I'm told that I will burn in hell for believing evolution, and it matters not a whit to me if that's sincere belief or rhetoric. One trick is that, if one is familiar enough with logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks, it's easier to see through the crappy arguments that rely on that garbage.

 

And if you don't recognize the crappy arguments, you might think that global warming is still a scientifically unanswered question.

[D H]

Pangloss, and I, and...nobody else I guess...see the hypocritical nature of the your's and the board's essential wholesale labeling of this as harmless rhetoric.

Ahem! You seem to have forgotten somebody in your accounting.

[ParanoiA]

Ahem! You seem to have forgotten somebody in your accounting.

 

Oops! Sorry about that...

[iNow]

It's interesting how this thread has evolved, and how so many people have so different perceptions.

 

Guy who is subject matter expert on global climate is frustrated from what he sees in the data and what he doesn't see in the policy.

 

Guy who is subject matter expert expresses said frustration using some harsh rhetoric, the stated suggestion either being his truly desired outcome or just some words to make a point.

 

SFN members who experience parallel frustrations with the lack of policy and action supported said comments.

 

SFN members who prioritize legal fairness over ecological damage (sorry, but this seems very much a false dichotomy to me) have managed to steer the conversation toward why it's wrong to punish for certain things.

 

 

Curious, indeed.

 

 

Now me, I'd have preferred had we spent all this time and energy on finding ways to encourage and quickly implement said policy and infrastructural improvements, but some may call me a dreamer...

 

I guess casting others into little perceptual slanted ideological boxes is more fun.

[D H]

Of course it was rhetoric, but it was stupid rhetoric. Read the thread on whaling to see why.

 

It is completely irrelevant that all of you AGW fanatics think you are in the right. You are not the decision makers. You have to convince the decision makers of Canada, the US, etc. that you are right, and to do that you need to convince enough voters that you are right so they will vote in more agreeable decision makers. You are not going to impress decision makers or voters with stupid rhetoric such as that highlighted in this thread or by calling people who disagree with you "global warming deniers". Read the thread on whaling to see why.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course it was stupid. Look at the negative response it's generated.

[Pangloss]

I just want to note for the record that this thread contains post after post of of personal "rhetoric" towards me, and absolutely none from me directed at any member here. That's been happening all along in this thread, so the post above is certainly nothing new. In addition I asked for acknowledgement that I was talking about human contribution TO global warming, not GW itself, and rather than collegially acknowledge that point, I was ignored. So not only was I demonized, but I was deliberately misrepresented.

 

You asked me before if I was proud of myself over this thread, iNow. The answer to that question is a resounding yes.

[Reaper]

This thread is so stupid.