[luke warm]

winston, did you read my earlier post in this thread re: just which side has an agenda? richard said he could counter the quotes i gave with those from credible (remember, my quotes were from leaders of the gw argument), but i'm not sure he can

they actually endorse lying about the issue, making up facts, to support their position... what would you say about people who advocate such a tactic, if you weren't philosophically aligned with the goal?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 12:34 PM, said:

winston, did you read my earlier post in this thread re: just which side has an agenda? richard said he could counter the quotes i gave with those from credible (remember, my quotes were from leaders of the gw argument), but i'm not sure he can

they actually endorse lying about the issue, making up facts, to support their position... what would you say about people who advocate such a tactic, if you weren't philosophically aligned with the goal?

Jimmy (is it y or ie?),

Here is my history on this subject - I have come pretty much 180 degrees from where I was a few years ago - at that time I pretty much sided with the "they are ecological kooks" group. I can't say I was ever 100% for Bush but I was anti-Clinton/Gore. I even read Rush Limbaugh's book. I was more conservative minded than liberal. The Bush administration has scared me straight, though.

As for GW, I still don't know enough about this subject to have a strong opinion either way so I am open to both sides' arguments. I would have to say at this point I am more swayed to accept it is a real event but am not so sure simply due to normal aberration if the warming isn't simply cyclical and not caused by mankind. I need more data.

As you know and I have documented, I have a strong opinion on the voracity of the current administration - there has been (to me, not necessarily to others) enough anecdotal and collaborative evidence presented that this administration first sets an agenda and then either alters, ignores, or lies about any contrarian viewpoint or evidence.

Whether or not global warming is a significant problem is certainly of enough importance that it should be investigated without the constraints of politics.

So my problem once again comes down to the disdain the Bush administration has shown for opposing views - I tend to side now with the GW crowd simply because Bush has taken the other side and buried any contrary evidence.

[Winstonm]

Quote

they actually endorse lying about the issue, making up facts, to support their position... what would you say about people who advocate such a tactic, if you weren't philosophically aligned with the goal?

Sorry, J, I don't think I answered your question. Here goes:

Making up facts or ignoring facts that do not fit one's agenda is a violation of the scientific method - in concerns of science. data must be free of manipulation and stand or fall on its own merit.

This is such a complex problem (IMO) I really don't know where to start - perhaps to the root which is money.

Over the past 40 years, the separation of classes has increased dramatically with the rich gaining and the poor falling behind while the middle class has barely tread water - and is now starting to fall behind as well. With so much money concentrated in so few hands, the amounts of graft money can be so astronomical as to alter morality of almost anyone. The victim in this has been truth.

We kindly call this spin instead of its real name - deceit.

Money and with it Power is held in such concentration that I doubt it possible to ever again know the truth - and agenda will always take precedence.

I always enjoy reading yours and Richard's disagreements, as you are both highly educated and bright - I can't keep up with either of you. I am, though, more cynical it seems than Richard as I view conspiracy as more probable it seems than does he - you know, a conspiracy is nothing more than two people deciding together to break the law, so conspiracy is not unusual or off the wall. Among the hundreds of things I am skeptical about, I'd like to know why the Bush administration was so opposed to a 9-11 investigation and why they did their best to circumvent it. That makes no sense to me unless there is something to hide.

Likewise with the GW issue - when it's an Exxon-led scientific investigation or a Greenpeace-led investigation I feel neither can be trusted to be impartial - and there is no longer IMO an impartial and investigative press to sort out the difference.

It is disheartening and it is sad.

[luke warm]

Quote

Jimmy (is it y or ie?)

it's 'y'

Quote

We kindly call this spin instead of its real name - deceit.

we're in agreement

Quote

I always enjoy reading yours and Richard's disagreements, as you are both highly educated and bright - I can't keep up with either of you.

entirely untrue (the parts about my high education - tho not richard's - and your inability to keep up), you more than hold your own... although i am skeptical as to the truthfulness of any politician, i'm just as skeptical about conspiracy theories

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 09:09 PM, said:

Quote

Jimmy (is it y or ie?)

it's 'y'

Quote

We kindly call this spin instead of its real name - deceit.

we're in agreement

Quote

I always enjoy reading yours and Richard's disagreements, as you are both highly educated and bright - I can't keep up with either of you.

entirely untrue (the parts about my high education - tho not richard's - and your inability to keep up), you more than hold your own... although i am skeptical as to the truthfulness of any politician, i'm just as skeptical about conspiracy theories

Healthy skepticism is a good thing.

[DrTodd13]

Winstonm, on Nov 12 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 12:34 PM, said:

winston, did you read my earlier post in this thread re: just which side has an agenda? richard said he could counter the quotes i gave with those from credible (remember, my quotes were from leaders of the gw argument), but i'm not sure he can

they actually endorse lying about the issue, making up facts, to support their position... what would you say about people who advocate such a tactic, if you weren't philosophically aligned with the goal?

Jimmy (is it y or ie?),

Here is my history on this subject - I have come pretty much 180 degrees from where I was a few years ago - at that time I pretty much sided with the "they are ecological kooks" group. I can't say I was ever 100% for Bush but I was anti-Clinton/Gore. I even read Rush Limbaugh's book. I was more conservative minded than liberal. The Bush administration has scared me straight, though.

As for GW, I still don't know enough about this subject to have a strong opinion either way so I am open to both sides' arguments. I would have to say at this point I am more swayed to accept it is a real event but am not so sure simply due to normal aberration if the warming isn't simply cyclical and not caused by mankind. I need more data.

As you know and I have documented, I have a strong opinion on the voracity of the current administration - there has been (to me, not necessarily to others) enough anecdotal and collaborative evidence presented that this administration first sets an agenda and then either alters, ignores, or lies about any contrarian viewpoint or evidence.

Whether or not global warming is a significant problem is certainly of enough importance that it should be investigated without the constraints of politics.

So my problem once again comes down to the disdain the Bush administration has shown for opposing views - I tend to side now with the GW crowd simply because Bush has taken the other side and buried any contrary evidence.

I believe the position of the funding agencies with the federal government is not to fund climate research into the question of whether humans are causing global warming. The only research they will fund is into how fast humans are going to cause temps to rise and what can be done about it. As far as I know, Bush is not funding GW skeptics and if anything he is part of a system that actively discourages scientific skepticism. Whatever you subsidize you get more of...if you subsidize research into human-caused GW then you'll get more people interpreting evidence to support that viewpoint. As long as money is involved, you can't trust anyone's motives.