EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:42 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:14 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin


When you HONESTLY quote the gentleman, instead of taking a snippet out of the statement, the context is much different. It is unfortunate that HONESTY is too often ignored in Miltson's posts.

The entire quote:

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 3:20 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Wayne, I see you corrected the idiot's mistake in the title---why?
National Conversation on Climate Change Has Shifted
Frances Beinecke | July 22, 2014 11:51 am | Comments
76 92

2 243

francesbeineckebwMatt Russell recently declared that “we are already experiencing the effects of climate change.” Russell isn’t a pundit or scientist or government official. He is a fifth-generation farmer from Lacona, IA, and he is trying to raise crops in the face of extreme weather. “Scientists have been telling us what climate change looks like. As farmers, we’re living it,” Russell said.

The climate conversation has changed in this country.
Photo courtesy of ShutterstockPhoto courtesy of Shutterstock

"When I started working to combat climate change two decades ago, it was a topic largely for environmentalists and scientists. Now business leaders, former Republican officials, public health experts, religious groups and farmers have joined in.

Indeed, after reams of scientific evidence have appeared in the news and countless extreme weather events have landed in our communities, the issue has gone mainstream. The vast majority of Americans are no longer debating climate change; they are looking for solutions.

Seventy percent of Americans view climate change as a serious problem and support federal efforts to reduce global warming pollution, according to a recent ABC/Washington Post poll."
http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/22/national ... 7-85901709
This one is very valid;
The Danger of ‘Balanced’ Climate Science in the Media
Steven Cohen | July 22, 2014 10:48 am |
"The media, in attempting to offer “balanced stories” does a disservice to the public and policymakers by giving small handfuls of climate change contrarians significant attention despite the fact that nearly all climate scientists agree that climate change is underway and that it is human-caused. When they share equal airtime it sends the message that the science is more uncertain than it is. The questioning of science by the American right wing clearly does not accurately reflect the scientific consensus, and is detrimental to those interested in moving our economy down a sustainable path. Why then does the media still give skeptics equal amount of air time?

This question was recently asked by an independent body in Britain, the BBC Trust, calling on BBC to stop misleading viewers into thinking that the “debate” on climate change is equal. While critical opinion should not be ignored, they stated, a minority of unqualified skeptics should also not be portrayed as having the same weight as the majority of professional climate scientists."
http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/22/danger-o ... 7-85901709
Now, I've told you before about this, Wayne. Giving credence to our troll whats-the-name by allowing this denialist garbage equally with what is really happening. Makes it seem even when it's not.

What? No Answer?
The math is here for those who can understand;
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem ... rant_2.pdf

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:15 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 05, 2014 10:17 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member


Odd the entire quote seems to be on a different tack .....

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:10 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
What I've been observing for years finally has a name.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/16/n ... -alarmism/

Quote:
People are now referring to what the Obamacare campaigners did as “Grubering”. Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative. The justification for Grubering is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion. Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics can possibly know what’s best of the little people. Jefferson would be turning in his grave.

I think that no other word describes what we have seen in the climate debate quite as well as Grubering. The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations. There are many discussion about how the public could not possibly understand such a complex subject.


And, now for our quote from the Environ-Mental-ist.

Quote:
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.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:03 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
What I've been observing for years finally has a name.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/16/n ... -alarmism/

Quote:
People are now referring to what the Obamacare campaigners did as “Grubering”. Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative. The justification for Grubering is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion. Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics can possibly know what’s best of the little people. Jefferson would be turning in his grave.

I think that no other word describes what we have seen in the climate debate quite as well as Grubering. The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations. There are many discussion about how the public could not possibly understand such a complex subject.


And, now for our quote from the Environ-Mental-ist.

Quote:
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.


Milton's posts are clear evidence of the accuracy of the theory "the public is too stupid to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the wrong conclusion"

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group