Blatant Hypocrisy Among Global Warming Skeptics: IPCC Chapter 9

Who do you love? Who do you believe?

contradictory results from many.

Personally I have formed an opinion, from my own research of scientific obeservations and results able to be found, that Global Warming is Not a myth. But the cause is simply not Just US. 

Help me out on this please. I posted a story by two scientists.
John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia.

Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural

Resources Stewardship Project entitled

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax 

Shortly after I posted it I saw a good member logo beside my name.

Shortly after that I got flaged by science  Dave. He disagrees with their findings. That's fine but does it derserve a flag? Is Dave more qualified than the writers. I don't know, but is Dave the final authority on the subject

Then in this post Dave describes them as "
Global warming denialists Tom Harris and John McLean attacked the credibility of the fourth IPCC" Not very nice. Does he have proof they are Global warming denialists or is that just his opinion. Should I flag him? No, I believe in freedom of both the press and thought. Both in short supply in 2007

Dave is an editor for Public Now. His post is given a good stuff icon from another editor. Is this good policy? 

A person tgged my post as good stuff but I guess it won't show up as long as I'm flaged. Maybe the readers can connvice Dave to pull the flag.

Hope this doesn't get me banned or blocked because I believe this site is important. 

Dave, I truly believe that we would all be better served if, instead of using your powers to wrench an article with which you disagreed, you had simply disagreed and then posted your article.

Global warming is a very contentious issue. It's not a simple one, either.

If someone disagrees with your article, or with any of your citations, should they then wrench your article?

Take a look at the suggested text with the wrench: doesn't say anything about scientific disputes or interpretation of data.

Rather than using that power to take someone else's article out of readership while then posting your own to contradict that article, why not remove the wrench, and continue to comment there, and here? Consider it an opportunity for  point/counter-point?

The hellaciously hard thing about editing is doing so based on criteria according to the publication's model and stated standards. NP's standards are pretty clear.

Frankly, your article quotes your own blog. It's your opinion. Yet you posted it as News. Since that doesn't meet NP criteria, how would you feel if someone wrenched it?

Let the other guy post his as an opinion; you post yours as an opinion, then let a respectful discussion be held.

Otherwise, it can come across as s not wrenching the original article because it didn't meet standard NP criteria, but instead censoring a dissenting voice.  Since we've talked so often, I'm sure that you didn't intend to project that, or to do that.

Although I admire your passion, my passion lies in a different direction: one of editing according to NP criteria and not according to my own opinions. I truly believe that wrenching things with which we disagree as a matter of opinion, or things which present data we believe is not factual in its entirety, not truthful in its presentation, or information that is deliberately misinterpreted through either error or intention, we run huge risks.

Mark Twain said it best: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."  And I wouldn't bet the family farm on a current scientific theory, given the long list of science that was supported by leaders in times past and that was totally--wrong.

"Rather than using that power to take someone else's article out of
readership while then posting your own to contradict that article, why
not remove the wrench, and continue to comment there, and here?
Consider it an opportunity for  point/counter-point?"

In my defence, I failed to recognize that atomcat and the authors of the original article were not one and the same.

Frankly, your article quotes your own blog. It's your opinion. Yet you
posted it as News. Since that doesn't meet NP criteria, how would you
feel if someone wrenched it?

Wait, no I'm confused what NowPublic is about: crowd powered media, no?  Is Uncultured's blog newsworthy? Of course.  Then how might referring to my blog change that matter?  What if I had decided not to write this on my blog, and simply written it on NP - would that have changed anything? I sincerely hope not.

Furthermore, I also now realise I did not file this under "Opinions" as I should have.  This has been rectified.  That said, atomcat's article should also be filed under "Opinion".  If this is done, I will be hapy to remove the flag.

This now brings me to my final point: under what circumstances should "news sources" be under suspicion by NP'ers?  If someone where to post hate-material on NP, or "The Onion-esque" parodies, it would be flagged lickity split.  How different is publishing information that is in no way backed up with evidence from this?  To quote NP's Code of Conduct:

Deliberately posting stuff that one knows is untrue, false, or misleading.

This one really goes against everything that NowPublic stands for.

The problem, it seems, is accountability - how accountable is atomcat for the work of others, if atomcat did not verify the information presented?

I've changed "Denialists" to "Skeptics", which the two authors obviously are from their article.

Anyways, I didn't mean to Pee-Oh anyone.

Good morning Dave!

About your blog--it's not that it's from your blog, but it's your opinion, as originally published in your blog, vs. a highlighting of someone else's news article about another opinion on this issue. Whew. That was a lot to type! But I think we agree: opinion is opinion.

And I hope the other contributor changes his category to Opinions. You've done a good job of coming up with a fair win-win for all of us by saying that you'll remove the wrench if he properly categorizes it. Thanks! 

Sounds like we have a good discussion topic for editors: what are the paramaters of "untrue, false, or misleading", especially in controversial areas?  :) 

I'd like to hear more discussions about global warming. At first I bought it, en toto, the whole thing: we're heating up and it's our fault. Now I want to hear the other voices, talking about cycles and long-term changes. I remember not too very long ago when the alarm was that the world was getting colder and heading back into a new Ice Age.  ;}

Anything that affects all of us deserves, I think, rigorous examinations and conversations.  

The problem is that so many of these so called global warming deniers have their own agenda. And while other scientists saying it's a huge problem may have an agenda or two of their own, they generally aren't being paid and supported by the corporations that are causing these issues in the first place.

"It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myth that surround it. - John Pilger

The arrogance that the Goristas show by calling those who disagree with them deniers has made the Global Warming or Climate Change debate a devisive political football. Goristas base their claims on "so called" scientists who can't predict the next tornado or hurricane let alone next weeks weather. I am more worried about astriods which we know can cause "climate Change" in the next 20 yrs. other than someone telling me he"Thinks" he has the answers to world climate changes 100 years from now.

This is all about power and money, our money. Al Gore knows how much money is at stake, he rakes in millions of dollars on his predictions. And lives high off the hog. That is why more and more people are "skeptics"..mpress..

It seems to me that Dave has taken it upon
himself to be a censor not an editor. If that's okay with NP, who am I
to argue. I spent time in Calgary as a reporter and I'm getting ready
to launch a magazine. News has been one sided for too long, with any
dissenting voice being quashed. The whole basis of my magazine is to
present both sides and let the readers decide.

If I'm wrong the magazine will fail, but then I still have faith that people can think for themselves given the opportunity. 

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change

prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming

must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.The leader

of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over

man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of

unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

continue reading 

Dave, is the Pope a 

heretic?

good stuff:

ScienceDave, I like this story. It's good stuff.

good stuff:

ScienceDave, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I love the debate! But honestly, folks, none of us will be here to ultimately see which side wins out. Just an opinion, but it seems the Global Warming believers (if they really do believe) are using this issue to sledgehammer anyone disagrees? Doesn't he Nobel Prize carry a substansial monetary prize with it? (to be fair to Al "Oscar" Gore, he says he will donate the proceeds, not pocket them). I think the profits are more available to the Pro Global Warmists, aren't they? New research, more grants, enineering solutions?

I welcome global warming, I have never seen scientific evidence that global warming has ever hurt the earth or it's inhabitats. I think we have all read about the ice ages.

Sort of like religion, neither side can ever prove it's beliefs.