Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

  1. #1
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    This thread and post will my last on the subject of global warming.

    ( I know some of you out there are saying "thanks be to god" ) LOL!

    The following quote perfectly explains why I have such trouble giving equal consideration to the arguements that some of the people here have tried to use to back up their opinion and position on climate change. Please refer to it if or when anyone has comment or question about my strong opposition to the theory that human use of fossil fuels are not the main cause of the current global warming issue.


    'While giving equal coverage to two opposing sides may seem appropriate in political discourse, it is manifestly inappropriate in discussions of science, where objective truths exist. In the case of climate change, a exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates. There are only a handful of "contrarian" climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the an equal say with in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate.'



    The End

  2. #2
    God/dess FBR's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,351
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 342 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Mellow

    Default Re: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    This thread and post will my last on the subject of global warming.

    ( I know some of you out there are saying "thanks be to god" ) LOL!
    T10 I not only said that, I also genuflexed and crossed myself for emphasis to make sure hes listening

    I have no idea. I've read so much conflicting information all by supposed experts. Fuck it. All I know is weve been running 10-15 degrees below normal temp for a while but who knows, next year this time we might well be the same amount over normal. I'll just keep contributing my CO2 and hope for the best

    FBR
    Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.

  3. #3
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    I say err on the side of caution. Even if the contraries are correct, then cessation of fossil fuel use (most especially from foreign sources) couldn't cause much in the way of long term harm to either atmosphere, foreign policy or economy.

    It is the corporate culture (and the power that it currently posses) that will see the greatest damage from a switch to more and varied (and renewable) fuel sources. Oh, that and the revenue would dry up to fascists nations like Iran.

    Change=opportunity. Sure, some will be hurt by the changes, but more will benefit in the end. Adapt or die, people.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  4. #4
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    This thread and post will my last on the subject of global warming.
    That's cool T-10 (or should I say TL), you can always make a new handle so you can write more posts on global warming in an effort to pick petty arguments with others here.


    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    The following quote perfectly explains why I have such trouble giving equal consideration to the arguements that some of the people here have tried to use to back up their opinion and position on climate change. Please refer to it if or when anyone has comment or question about my strong opposition to the theory that human use of fossil fuels are not the main cause of the current global warming issue.

    'While giving equal coverage to two opposing sides may seem appropriate in political discourse, it is manifestly inappropriate in discussions of science, where objective truths exist. In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates. There are only a handful of "contrarian" climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate.'

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ty-of-balance/
    Translation to English: If I find it on the internet and it backs up my self-righteous agenda regarding any issue I wish to speak on then it is irrefutable Gospel. Anyone who provides any links contradicting said Gospel is a propaganda spewing liar, and should be shot, dropped in acid, or set on fire. Only I should be able to speak on these forums. The rest of you must shut up. Only I should be able to speak. The rest of you must shut up. Only I should be able to speak. The rest of you must shut up. Why aren't you shutting up?? Damn it! Why? Why? Why? ~~~~~~

    ~~~~ Spins violently out of control, explodes in a supernova, killing everyone in a small village in Venezuela. No biggie though, they worked for an oil company. They deserved it. Let's hope they burn in hell!! ~~~


    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    The End
    Umm, I doubt it.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    There are only a handful of "contrarian" climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate.'
    I would recommend giving equal time to the objective scientific evidence, regardless of the number of scientists who have lined up to support each of the various unproven theories. As Galileo would tell you if he were still alive, a politically correct but scientifically incorrect 'concensus' can be very effective in suppressing a scientific truth which the 'powers that be' of that moment don't want to be forced to accept - for a while at least. In Galileo's own time, the 'earth is the center of the universe' theory was the politically correct 'concensus'.

    Even if the contraries are correct, then cessation of fossil fuel use (most especially from foreign sources) couldn't cause much in the way of long term harm to either atmosphere, foreign policy or economy.
    I suppose this could be true in an ideal world. However, if you read the fine print, you'll find that this is not what's being called for by the human activity related global warming activists. The Kyoto treaty does not call for the reduction / cessation of fossil fuel use across the board. It in fact calls for large reductions in fossil fuel use in the industrialized countries i.e. US, Europe, Japan but only token reductions in fossil fuel use in the developing countries i.e. China, India. The same human activity related global warming activists are also calling for a 'carbon tax' and/or the mandatory purchase of 'carbon credits' by the industrialized countries. Another permutation of this is Al Gore's 'carbon credits', where a company in an industrialized nation that wishes to consume fossil fuels must purchase 'carbon credits' from an industry in China or India that simultaneously agrees to reduce consumption of fossil fuels (which in cold hard financial terms arguably amounts to a tax on industries located in the industrialized world and a subsidy to businesses in the developing world).

    In the real world, for the industrialized countries, complying with a treaty requirement for reducing CO2 emissions is de-facto guaranteed to have the following results. Industrial use of energy will be 'prioritized and officially allocated' by some government agency ... which amounts to life or death power in regard to which industries will live vs which industries will die. Individual use of energy will certainly become more expensive, and probably be subject to being 'prioritized and allocated' by some government agency as well ... which amounts to life or death power over the suburban lifestyle. If nothing else, it is virtually guaranteed that fossil fuels will become far more expensive as a result of the 'carbon tax'. It is also virtually guaranteed that all energy intensive industries will leave the industrialized countries and relocate to the developing countries i.e. China, India to avoid the increased 'carbon tax' costs (taking existing industrialized country jobs with them).

    If you wish to research 'proof' of this future possibility in regard to major industrialized nation employers / employees, consider that many major power players in advocating human activity based global warming measures such as the Kyoto treaty and the 'carbon tax' ( George Soros and Maurice Strong, for example ) are also positioning themselves to profit in a big way from manufacturing ventures in developing countries ( the import of Chery automobiles from China, same example) that will fill the void created by 'carbon taxing' auto manufacturers in industrialized countries out of business.

    One can only make conjecture as to the economic effects on working class residents of industrialized countries stemming from a 'carbon tax' and gov't prioritization and allocation (a.k.a. rationing) of energy to various industries. I would guess that Michigan might serve as a possible example in terms of the economic effects of major employers closing up shop. On the other hand, because of the increase in international finance / transactions associated with 'carbon tax' based relocation / dislocation to the developing countries it is probable that financial centers like Manhattan might do very well !

    It isn't difficult to figure out what is likely to happen to the economies of suburban areas though. Just imagine that the price of gasoline / heating oil / natural gas / fossil fuel generated electricity are all increased by 50% tomorrow as the result of a 'carbon tax'. Just imagine how much money suburban homeowners won't be able to spend on other things ... like for example lap dances, college educations for their children, mortgage payments. Just imagine how many suburban businesses will wind up closing shop because of a declining customer base (former suburbanites moving to big cities to save commuting fuel) plus greatly increased truck transportation costs being charged for items they are producing / selling (versus transportation by ship to big cities at least).

    In truth, there is one proven measure that would be able to reduce CO2 emissions in a big way without causing a massive disruption in the price / availability of energy. That one proven measure is nuclear power. But that's an entirely different 'Pandora's Box' that I won't attempt to open in this thread.

    Paris (and any other readers who are still open minded on this issue), if you are really interested in 'following the money' on this issue, I suggest that you do a Google search on a gentleman named Maurice Strong !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-17-2007 at 08:00 PM.

  6. #6
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate.'

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ty-of-balance/

    The End
    I don't know why you are knocking the Flat Earth Society. A couple years ago, we had a conference of geophysicists in town and a Flat Earth Society convention at the same time. The headline in the paper that weekend? Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ

    Hey it was in the newspaper, therefore it must be true: the opinions of the Flat Earthers is equally as valid as that of the geophysicists. So stop bashing them.

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The False Objectivity of “Balance”

    well, apparently there isn't much 'difference of opinion' in the public schools ...



    (snip)"n South Burlington recently, a middle school math teacher used a portion of Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” to illustrate linear equations. An English teacher used the movie to spark opinion writing. Another documentary, “Too Hot Not To Handle,” was shown in a science class during a climate and weather unit to help illustrate the effect that human beings have on the environment, according to Frederick Tuttle Middle School Principal Joe O’Brien.

    In Jericho this week, Jericho Elementary School students put on a play about global warming.

    As global warming has shifted from the subject of scientific trade journals and alternative media to the center of the public and political arenas, it also has become a hot topic in public schools. That has some parents questioning what their children are hearing. Parents who disagree with the global warming theory, or who chalk it up to environmental alarmists or political hyperbole, are finding that their points of view aren’t given the attention afforded the “other side.”

    This has educators wondering if global warming is the next intelligent design versus evolution debate?

    “That’s always a very delicate situation, that we provide a balance,” O’Brien said of the global warming discussion. O’Brien was contacted recently by parent Linus Leavens, who was upset that “An Inconvenient Truth” and “Too Hot Not To Handle” were shown to his children.

    Although school officials say the movies were used as a tool to illustrate linear equations and to show how an argument can be presented, Leavens is still concerned that countering theories were not shown.

    Leavens said he is not convinced that humans are causing climate change. He points to the views of S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University who is skeptical of global warming theories such as those discussed in Gore’s movie, and wants to ensure that the views of global warming dissenters are presented at school. Also, he complains, Gore is a politician.

    "Al Gore is a political animal,” Leavens said. “That, I have an issue with. There are people out there who are not buying the left-wing environmental blitz hook, line and sinker. I want both sides to be presented.” (snip)


    (snip)"As with any theory, global warming has its dissenters. Leavens is one, and he said he doesn’t appreciate being viewed as though he “thinks the earth is flat” and his “head is in the sand.”

    Leavens has problems with Gore’s movie, and he questions Hollywood’s profits.

    “The real question and concern is, are we getting our science curriculum from Hollywood? Because Hollywood is known for a lot of things, but the foundation for science and critical thinking, it’s not.”

    Burlington resident Steve Coss also questions the science.

    “My concern is there just doesn’t seem to be any balance anymore,” Coss said. “It’s like if you question the science you’re actually called a denier now. It’s like the Holocaust deniers.” ?

    STUDENT RESPONSE

    Jericho Elementary School third-grade teacher Sharyl Green said she anticipated controversy when she began discussion of “what an erratic climate pattern this is,” she said. So she wrote to parents to explain her intention — to educate, not alarm. And she’s been successful, she said.

    “They are eating it up,” Green said of her students. “They are very in touch with it. I don’t think they feel saddened or distracted by it. Most are hungry for information. I don’t think that they feel responsible for it; they understand we need to change habits.”

    Students put on a global warming play Thursday."(snip)

Similar Threads

  1. Balance billing
    By Mare in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-01-2008, 08:27 AM
  2. How do you balance it all?
    By luxury in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 12:06 PM
  3. How do you balance it all?
    By luxury in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 12:06 PM
  4. 'balance'[ indeed !
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 08:09 PM
  5. Lunges and balance
    By smartcookie in forum Body Business
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-26-2006, 07:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •