Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:Political negligence in reporting blatant incidents of interference

Expand Messages
  • Wayne
    Very good Pat! Mr. Bennet said it well. The hoax idea is possible because the majority of the public, like Rush Limbaugh, has no concept of the scientific
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Very good Pat! Mr. Bennet said it well. The hoax idea is possible
      because the majority of the public, like Rush Limbaugh, has no concept
      of the scientific method. What we have is a clash of political
      ideology and science. Since education is failing to provide a general
      knowledge of science and its methods, scientists must become somewhat
      political themselves to get their message to the masses because of the
      distortions of the political agenda.

      LWB

      -- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, lainie121@ wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm not a scientist, just an amateur astronomer.Many of the messages
      > > posted seem to be more about personalities than science..Vice
      President
      > > Al Gore spoke before congress and warned that our earth "has a fever."
      > > Afterwards the mostly Republican committee ridiculed his testimony..My
      > > son is a professional astronomer and he thinks the topic of Global
      > > Warming is a hoax..So,I will just wait and listen and hopefully learn.
      > > Clear Skies! ~Lainie~
      >
      > That's exactly what the self professed global warming "skeptics" are
      > directing you to do, Lainie. To just wait and listen, and hopefully
      > learn. All the meanwhile, with our unlimited fossil fuel burning and
      > destruction of the earth's increasingly vulnerable biotic systems for
      > our own purposes, we are putting the earth on a path not unlike the
      > planet Venus followed billions of years ago. There will be
      > unimanginable human misery and suffering before the end of the century
      > as a result of this generations refusal to deal responsibly with this
      > problem.
      >
      > I apologize for being so blunt but I believe you are very wrong to
      > suggest the astronomy profession believes global warming is a hoax. I
      > have read countless works of astronomers who believe we are in deep,
      > deep trouble with the rate that we are pumping greenhouse gases -
      > known to trap heat in planets' atmospheres - into the earth's
      > atmosphere.
      >
      > But I don't expect you to believe what I say without giving you at
      > least one example. Lainie, I suggest you match your son's creditials
      > up against those of educator Jeffery Bennett. Then read what Bennett
      > has to say about the "hoax" of global warming. Oh, and don't forget
      > to take the "letter to your grandchildren test" before you decide who
      > is putting forth the truth on this paramount of all scientific
      > questions of today.
      >
      > JEFFERY BENNETT BIO
      >
      > Jeffrey Bennett holds a B.A. in Biophysics from the University of
      > California at San Diego and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the
      > University of Colorado at Boulder. He has taught extensively at all
      > levels, including having founded and run a private science summer
      > school for elementary and middle school children. At the college
      > level, he has taught more than fifty classes in astronomy, physics,
      > mathematics, and education. He is the author of leading college
      > textbooks in four distinct subject areas: astronomy, mathematics,
      > statistics, and astrobiology (life in the universe). Among his other
      > major endeavors, he served two years as a Visiting Senior Scientist at
      > NASA Headquarters.
      >
      > Followins is a part of Jeffery Bennett's "personal mission statement":
      >
      > "My professional activities are guided by a deep personal sense of
      > mission, driven by my belief that our civilization is at a critical
      > juncture in history. The crisis is manifested by symptoms like
      > environmental degradation, explosive population growth, and losses of
      > individual freedom. I maintain that the cause of these symptoms,
      > however, can be traced to the fact that human understanding — and
      > therefore human behavior — has not advanced in step with human
      > knowledge. This discordance between knowledge and understanding is
      > particularly acute in science and technology, and it has grown rapidly
      > over the past century. The problem is familiar in a such areas as
      > nuclear technology, where many of the scientists who developed the
      > atomic bomb were unprepared for the political fallout that followed,
      > and in the field of medicine where scientific advances routinely raise
      > ethical questions. Nevertheless, I believe the problem goes far deeper
      > than generally recognized, especially when we consider the gulf
      > between the knowledge held by specialists and the broad understanding
      > of the public. Indeed, I argue that most people are unaware of basic
      > relationships between humanity and the natural world spawned by our
      > advances in science and technology. The result, I believe, is that
      > most people — including most policy makers — are presently unprepared
      > to confront the significant challenges facing our survival."
      >
      > Jeffery Bennett doesn't pay much attention to follies of debating with
      > the global warming "skeptics" community. But he does deals with the
      > "debaters" in a postscript to his assessment of the global warming
      > quagmire:
      >
      > "... Since you will surely encounter them on the news, I suppose I
      > should also address the small but vocal group of people who go around
      > claiming that global warming is some kind of hoax. Like those who
      > claim NASA never landed on the Moon or that the Grand Canyon proves
      > Earth is only 6,000 years old, the best way to combat these folks is
      > to understand the flaws in their claims. I can't go into all of the
      > arguments here, but to start with you should realize that most of
      > their "facts" are at best distortions and at worst outright lies.
      > Here's a few examples:
      >
      > * Many in the "it's a hoax" camp are now claiming that back in the
      > 1970's the scientific consensus was that we were headed for global
      > cooling and an ice age - a "fact" they use to support their claim that
      > you shouldn't believe the scientific consensus today. However, this
      > "fact" simply isn't true. Perhaps the people stating this untrue
      > "fact" are just confused, since by the '70s we had learned that we are
      > currently in an "interglacial" period following the last ice age
      > (suggesting that we might be "due" for another ice age) and data
      > showed (and still do) a slight global cooling during the mid-20th
      > century. But with a few exceptions, scientists already recognized this
      > cooling as an aberration, unrelated to long-term ice age cycles, and
      > that the real issue for the future would be global warming. I know
      > this from my own experience, since my '70s science classes were
      > already discussing global warming as the serious concern. If you want
      > more proof, just look back at scientific publications from the 1970s.
      > There are many examples, but here's one to start with: The summary of
      > an article published in Science Magazine, 8 August 1975, p. 460,
      > states: "...the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide
      > content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the
      > next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond
      > the limits experienced during the last 1000 years."
      > * The "hoax" camp has made a mini-industry of claiming that the
      > "hockey stick graph" - a graph of data showing that global
      > temperatures are now higher than at any time in the past thousand
      > years - has been discredited (a recent Wall Street Journal editorial
      > said this directly). However, while the original methodology that led
      > to this graph was indeed criticized by some scientists, its basic data
      > and conclusions have since been validated. Indeed, based on a request
      > from Congress, the National Research Council (NRC) investigated the
      > "hockey stick" graph. The NRC report on the issue, published in 2006,
      > came out in strong support of the methodologies used to look at past
      > climate data and of the conclusion that temperatures now are certainly
      > higher than at any time in the past 400 years and likely higher than
      > anytime in the past 1,000 years. (You can read the NRC report summary
      > or order the full report here.) Bottom line: Those who claim that the
      > graph has been discredited are ignoring reality.
      > * Some of the same folks are still recycling another old claim -
      > that satellite data about atmospheric temperatures contradict data
      > showing that Earth is warming; again, there was once some controversy
      > over these data, but the apparent discrepancy has now been resolved
      > (in essence, the discrepancy was traced to errors in the data
      > calibration, and once those were understood the discrepancy went
      > away). For a summary of how both scientific sides came to agreement
      > this issue, see Science Magazine, 12 May 2006, p. 825.
      > * Another popular claim in the hoax camp is that the IPCC report
      > is flawed because "science is not done by consensus." While it is true
      > that science must be based on evidence rather than on votes, it is
      > also still the case that science progresses only when the evidence
      > becomes strong enough to lead to widespread acceptance in the
      > scientific community. For example, Einstein's theories might have died
      > a quick death if not for the fact that evidence in support of them
      > soon convinced the vast majority of scientists. Indeed, when people
      > ask me for a brief statement on the purpose of science, I like to say
      > that science is a way of examining evidence so that people can come to
      > agreement. The IPCC report is just that: a large group of scientists
      > who examined the evidence and came to agreement.
      > * Finally, for an extreme example of the lengths to which some
      > people will go to dispute something that is really indisputable,
      > here's a quote from Rush Limbaugh (complete transcript here.): "I'm
      > not a scientist - in my common man way, I explained to this caller why
      > I do not believe in global warming. I gave as my primary belief that I
      > believe in God.... I'm saying as a believer of a loving God and a God
      > of Creation, that there is a complexity to all this that makes it
      > work; that we cannot understand; that we cannot really control; that
      > we cannot destroy, and that we really can't alter in its massive
      > complexity." So there you have it: If you believe that God has set
      > things up so that it's impossible for us to do anything bad to our
      > planet, then you have nothing at all to worry about. But if you
      > believe that God gave us free choice and helps those who help
      > themselves, then we'd better get to work."
      >
      > You can read what Jeffery Bennett professes to be true reqarding the
      > magnitude and urgency of the global warming threat that confronts us
      > all by reading the main text of his latest work:
      >
      > Super (Bowl) Misconceptions, Part 2: "Global Warming"
      > March 7, 2007
      > http://www.jeffreybennett.com/newsletters/superbowl.html
      >
      > Mike
      >
    • Mike Neuman
      Thanks, Wayne. People have credited (and blamed) me for what Pat has said and he for what I ve said many, many times before, so no harm done. I agree 100%
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Wayne. People have credited (and blamed) me for what Pat has
        said and he for what I've said many, many times before, so no harm done.

        I agree 100% that scientists everywhere ought be more political
        regarding the need for people in general to be doing something more
        regarding the increasing and already present danger of global warming.

        I see "political" as meaning that scientists should go one or two (or
        three) steps beyond what they have traditionally believed their role
        is in researching any scientific problem to solve. They should take
        those additional steps because scientists are human beings, too, and
        accordingly have morals to live by and responsibilities to fill,
        including making sure we all leave this planet in at least as good a
        shape as it was when we took it over.

        Global warming is not your common, everyday kind of physical or
        environmental problem. Not only is our whole world vulnerable to it,
        but even more importantly the time we have left to take meaningful
        action against it is shrinking ever so rapidly by each passing day.
        It has gone beyond the point of being the so-called "grand
        experiment". We now know that loading our atmosphere with billions
        and billion more of tons of greenhouse gases every year is causing the
        earth's temperature at the land and ocean surface to warm, measurably.
        We are also well aware that the warming will continue for decades
        even if we reduce our dramatically reduce our emissions (assuming we
        do that), due to the latent heat release of water.

        The grand scientific experiment is over and needs to be be called off.
        Scientists everywhere should join with the rest of the population in
        demanding that our government officials - at all levels - take the
        necessary steps to see to an aggregate reduction in greenhouse gas
        emissions, and not just some arbitrary measure based on the rate of
        growth in the economy as the Bush administration has advocated.

        Mike

        "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men."
        -Abraham Lincoln



        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <kb0syf@...> wrote:
        >
        > Very good Pat! Mr. Bennet said it well. The hoax idea is possible
        > because the majority of the public, like Rush Limbaugh, has no concept
        > of the scientific method. What we have is a clash of political
        > ideology and science. Since education is failing to provide a general
        > knowledge of science and its methods, scientists must become somewhat
        > political themselves to get their message to the masses because of the
        > distortions of the political agenda.
        >
        > LWB
      • lainie121@webtv.net
        Hi Jeffrey Bennett, The word hoax is mine. My son is Richard Nugent. he graduated from the University of South Florida in 1979 with a Master s degree in
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Jeffrey Bennett, The word hoax is mine. My son is Richard Nugent. he
          graduated from the University of South Florida in 1979 with a Master's
          degree in Positional Astronomy. His first job was at the Johnson Space
          Center in Houston, Texas. He is now the Executive secretary of
          IOTA.(International Occultation Timing Association.) I have no science
          degrees, just a love for Astronomy. BTW, Richard got interested in
          Astronomy when we visited the Hayden Planetarium in New York. Richard
          was then 13 years old. Clear Skies!
          ~Lainie~

          ~*Lainie~*The StarGazer*~


          My Astronomy Website:
          http://community.webtv.net/LAINIE121/doc
        • Wayne
          Oops! My excuse is that I responded to the Neuman name and since Pat ....... You are the good looking one, right? ;
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Oops! My excuse is that I responded to the Neuman name and since Pat
            .......

            You are the good looking one, right? ;<{)

            Yes, there is a lot at stake.

            LWB

            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks, Wayne. People have credited (and blamed) me for what Pat has
            > said and he for what I've said many, many times before, so no harm
            done.
            >
            > I agree 100% that scientists everywhere ought be more political
            > regarding the need for people in general to be doing something more
            > regarding the increasing and already present danger of global warming.
            >
            > I see "political" as meaning that scientists should go one or two (or
            > three) steps beyond what they have traditionally believed their role
            > is in researching any scientific problem to solve. They should take
            > those additional steps because scientists are human beings, too, and
            > accordingly have morals to live by and responsibilities to fill,
            > including making sure we all leave this planet in at least as good a
            > shape as it was when we took it over.
            >
            > Global warming is not your common, everyday kind of physical or
            > environmental problem. Not only is our whole world vulnerable to it,
            > but even more importantly the time we have left to take meaningful
            > action against it is shrinking ever so rapidly by each passing day.
            > It has gone beyond the point of being the so-called "grand
            > experiment". We now know that loading our atmosphere with billions
            > and billion more of tons of greenhouse gases every year is causing the
            > earth's temperature at the land and ocean surface to warm, measurably.
            > We are also well aware that the warming will continue for decades
            > even if we reduce our dramatically reduce our emissions (assuming we
            > do that), due to the latent heat release of water.
            >
            > The grand scientific experiment is over and needs to be be called off.
            > Scientists everywhere should join with the rest of the population in
            > demanding that our government officials - at all levels - take the
            > necessary steps to see to an aggregate reduction in greenhouse gas
            > emissions, and not just some arbitrary measure based on the rate of
            > growth in the economy as the Bush administration has advocated.
            >
            > Mike
            >
            > "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men."
            > -Abraham Lincoln
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <kb0syf@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Very good Pat! Mr. Bennet said it well. The hoax idea is possible
            > > because the majority of the public, like Rush Limbaugh, has no concept
            > > of the scientific method. What we have is a clash of political
            > > ideology and science. Since education is failing to provide a general
            > > knowledge of science and its methods, scientists must become somewhat
            > > political themselves to get their message to the masses because of the
            > > distortions of the political agenda.
            > >
            > > LWB
            >
          • jtr_iv
            Hi Mike, So basically you have found a scientist who is biased and an advocate for his beliefs and you are cheering him on. Shouldn t science be free from this
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Mike,

              So basically you have found a scientist who is biased and an advocate
              for his beliefs and you are cheering him on. Shouldn't science be
              free from this type of thing?

              Certainly scientists may have feelings regarding any subject but in
              order for people to have confidence in the science it should be done
              objectively and a scientist's personal beliefs should play no role in
              their professional activities.

              This is exactly the concern of many of us... that certain scientists
              are driven by a "personal sense of mission" is a great concern to the
              impartiality of the scientific process.

              Cheers

              Jim


              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...>
              wrote:
              > Followins is a part of Jeffery Bennett's "personal mission
              statement":
              >
              > "My professional activities are guided by a deep personal sense of
              > mission, driven by my belief that our civilization is at a critical
              > juncture in history. The crisis is manifested by symptoms like
              > environmental degradation, explosive population growth, and losses
              > of individual freedom.
            • Mike Neuman
              Jim, once the science has been carried out, and I believe it has in the case of global warming being caused by human actions, then it is also the responsibilty
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim, once the science has been carried out, and I believe it has in
                the case of global warming being caused by human actions, then it is
                also the responsibilty of the scientist to go even further, as regards
                global warming, to make sure the public is fully informed of the
                problem, its significance, and what might best be done about it. In
                the case of global warming, doing nothing to reduce our cumulative
                inputs of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is like throwing the
                towel in before the fight has even started.

                Mike

                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, jtr_iv <no_reply@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Mike,
                >
                > So basically you have found a scientist who is biased and an advocate
                > for his beliefs and you are cheering him on. Shouldn't science be
                > free from this type of thing?
                >
                > Certainly scientists may have feelings regarding any subject but in
                > order for people to have confidence in the science it should be done
                > objectively and a scientist's personal beliefs should play no role in
                > their professional activities.
                >
                > This is exactly the concern of many of us... that certain scientists
                > are driven by a "personal sense of mission" is a great concern to the
                > impartiality of the scientific process.
                >
                > Cheers
                >
                > Jim
                >
                >
                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@>
                > wrote:
                > > Followins is a part of Jeffery Bennett's "personal mission
                > statement":
                > >
                > > "My professional activities are guided by a deep personal sense of
                > > mission, driven by my belief that our civilization is at a critical
                > > juncture in history. The crisis is manifested by symptoms like
                > > environmental degradation, explosive population growth, and losses
                > > of individual freedom.
                >
              • debate
                On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:29:20 -0000, jtr_iv wrote Just think. If all the Attorney Generals were driven by a personal sense of mission to indict all the
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:29:20 -0000, jtr_iv wrote

                  Just think. If all the Attorney Generals were driven by a "personal sense of
                  mission" to indict all the people they thought might have, are presently, or
                  possibly might in the future, commit crimes, even though they have no real
                  evidence, just that "dedication to personal mission".

                  Or, imagine if the mission of your local prosecutor wasn't to make sure they
                  had it right before they prosecuted anyone, but just to prosecute just in
                  case it might be true.

                  Or, imagine if your doctor was on a personal mission to "save" all his
                  clients from Rabies, and treated EVERYONE, whether the facts supported such a
                  diagnosis or not.

                  Imagine if the highway patrol ignored speedometers, radar guns, and just
                  cited everyone that "looked like they might, were, have sometime, or might in
                  the future, violate traffic law".

                  NOWHERE in the green movement today is anyone interested in fact and truth.
                  They have found the 'cause', and to them, the 'cause' is justified, no matter
                  the facts.

                  Wayne gives not a rip about global warming, just like most of the people
                  here. If tomorrow an absolute proof positive discovery was made that the
                  climate change was absolutely natural and unalterable by ANY means, they
                  would STILL advocate exactly the same things they do today, but just would
                  find some other obscure and murky issue to declare "the debate is over"
                  about.

                  Most are merely "using" whatever issue happens to be expedient, in order to
                  advance what they want in the first place, most of which happens to be
                  controls placed on people's behavior, wholesale change to our economic
                  system, from free enterprise to centralized planning and control, and a
                  complete loss of personal economic freedom.

                  That's ALL they actually care about. The ozone hole (still there, we did
                  nothing to help or hurt it), spotted owls, global warming, these are
                  transitory issues that help obscure the goals and wants. They will abandon
                  global warming as fast as they adopted it when something more easily
                  exploited comes along.

                  In the meantime, the most effective means known of stopping pollution,
                  resource exploitation and spoilage, and cleaning up the necessary pollution
                  that occurs just by living - otherwise known as individual freedom,
                  prosperity, and private enterprise - is being cast aside wholesale, and in
                  fact, targeted by every green group.

                  The only known means of Eastern Europe, Africa, China, India, and so on, ever
                  living "clean" is the successful implementation of private enterprise which
                  brings the individual prosperity that makes it possible to pay the costs
                  of "clean".

                  But they attack those things.

                  The only "salvation" left if we don't have those things... is death.

                  And with the anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-american attitudes of those who
                  seek to be in control of every detail of our lives... it might be
                  preferrable.




                  > Hi Mike,
                  >
                  > So basically you have found a scientist who is biased and an
                  > advocate for his beliefs and you are cheering him on. Shouldn't
                  > science be free from this type of thing?
                  >
                  > Certainly scientists may have feelings regarding any subject but in
                  > order for people to have confidence in the science it should be done
                  > objectively and a scientist's personal beliefs should play no role
                  > in their professional activities.
                  >
                  > This is exactly the concern of many of us... that certain scientists
                  > are driven by a "personal sense of mission" is a great concern to
                  > the impartiality of the scientific process.
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Followins is a part of Jeffery Bennett's "personal mission
                  > statement":
                  > >
                  > > "My professional activities are guided by a deep personal sense of
                  > > mission, driven by my belief that our civilization is at a critical
                  > > juncture in history. The crisis is manifested by symptoms like
                  > > environmental degradation, explosive population growth, and losses
                  > > of individual freedom.


                  --------------------------------------------

                  mark k
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.