Climate Grubering

[Heissonear]

It serves well for "Grubering" to be defined by Dupsters - the lofty scientific elite can make decisions for you. So they think. So has come to pass in our society.

The late Steven Schneider puts it succinctly:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

 

[Heissonear]

Grubering:

Will Jonathan Gruber hasten ObamaCare's demise? | On Air Videos | Fox News

Plain and simple. These Dupsters.

 

[hurste1951]

If scientists include all the caveats (which they almost always do) it allows low-information, agenda-driven moutpieces to leverage the "doubt" to blot out the science. As we can easily see since most earth scientists actually DO agree with the agw hypothesis the fact that skeptics still get equal time in the public sphere despite carrying only a few percent of the actual professionals means the "skeptics" have been greatly over-represented.

It is then that the skeptics and their mouthpieces start to play the "doubt game". Which is what they did during the acid-rain conflicts of the 1980's, and the smoking-lung cancer connection in the 1970's. It is a game oft repeated and exploited with near perfection by the skeptics and deniers.

Note how oversimplified and non-caveated the blogs are that you usually rely on. They seldom are anything but screeds with a few numbers put in there to lend some credibility. Even people like Christopher Monckton are known to play loose and fast with the facts. Monckton's disastrously poor fudging of data and trends is a prime example. But he's by no means the only one.

For all the loud strident claims you make about the "fraud" of AGW, so far AGW is the only one that has garnered the vast majority of scientists who work on this stuff. And in fact the people who populate the "denier" side, the bloggers and paid spokesmen like Monckton and others who exist in the semi-anonymous blogosphere seem to have the least risked while they get the most pay-back for consistently misrepresenting science or avoiding it altogether.

 

[Heissonear]

Now that Grubering is defined we can look and see it more easily.

The Bible says knowledge puffs up. Grubering has arrived in our society and is not going away any time soon.

 

[hurste1951]

Now that Grubering is defined we can look and see it more easily.

The Bible says knowledge puffs up. Grubering has arrived in our society and is not going away any time soon.

The Bible also says that pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.

I can definitely see "an haughty spirit" around here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It serves well for "Grubering" to be defined by Dupsters - the lofty scientific elite can make decisions for you. So they think. So has come to pass in our society.

How many more conspiracy threads about climate are you going to make Heiss?

Are we a little bit obsessed?

 

[Heissonear]

How many more conspiracy threads about climate are you going to make Heiss?

Are we a little bit obsessed?

Read post one and the links in post 2.

More Grubering to come: it is now embedded in our society.

 

[hurste1951]

Read post one and the links in post 2.

More Grubering to come: it is now embedded in our society.

Actually Gruber was correct. Most Americans ARE easily led by "labels". (If you actually read what Gruber said he was only pointing out that if the ACA were "labeled" as a tax it would lose in the mind of the electorate, NOT because of what it embodied but how it would be politically spun).

In the case of AGW most people are also equally uninformed of the facts. They can easily be lead by loud shouters such as yourself. People who live to HYPE and HYPERBOLIZE a topic. People who would hide the deeper science in preference to the easy "blog soundbite".

Few on here actually have the scientific background to understand the details so it falls to an army of us to take on your repeated hype which hopes to cloud the issue with more questionable content.

 

[Heissonear]

As presented in the quote in Post #1, a segment states:

And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

But have some forgotten that Anthropogenic induced Global Warming is a hypothesis?

CO2 caused Global Warming has not been proven.

.

 

[hurste1951]

But have some forgotten that Anthropogenic induced Global Warming is a hypothesis?

It is an hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested for about 60 years now. It is also an hypothesis that is shown to be likely true from paleoclimate data from the earth's own history. It is an hypothesis relying on standard physics and chemistr.

CO2 caused Global Warming has not been proven.

Few things in science are "proven". Most are accepted due to a preponderance of evidence. And so far AGW has a HUGE preponderance of evidence.