Carbon Dioxide against the Poor
The promoters of the global warming hype have an agenda which is not good. They often mention population control, but the price of their fix is higher costs for energy and transportation, which is going to fall hardest on the poor. They show little concern for the fact that there is no possibility of significantly reducing carbon dioxide output; they simply say, you have to start someplace.
This is ethically no different than the Nazis claiming to create the Arian race by starting with the extermination of misfits. There was no Arian race, and there is no ability of humans to influence global warming.
In fact, there is no real scientific basis for claiming global warming is caused by carbon dioxide, let alone humans. The propagandists can never produce real scientific explanations or evidence for their claims.
The global warming hype grew out of population control motives, not real science. Real scientists tried to produce the truth, but they were silenced when the public was convinced that humans are the cause. Scientists can no longer speak out against the status quo, because there is a fascist-like control of science by power mongers who are railroading science.
I explain the scientific evidence on my web site and show that global warming is caused by oceans heating, not carbon dioxide in the air. My web site is here:
Gary Novak
wrong on global warming
Gary,
With all due respect, you are way off on global warming. In fact, any time anyone makes reference to current political context to the Nazis they are usually way off base. The fact is that almost all scientists except global warming as a reality that can be measured in any number of ways. And to say that human activity has no affect on the environment again just flies in the face of so much data.
If there is anyone close to fascists relative to drowning out science its the Bush administration which has pushed scientists out of public life for not agreeing with them on global warming. There may be some reason for your alarm, but the finger is pointing the wrong way.
Interestingly enough, the environment is an issue in which progressive, moderate and yes even conservative Christians are getting together to take action. Whether is "creation care" or "deep ecology" as one's rationale, the environmental policy goals are becoming aligned across the system.
After years of denial, even Pat Robertson acknowledged the facts around global warming this past summmer.
Propaganda has Overrun the Subject
Stephen.
You are speaking at a social level, which has been overrun by propaganda. I'm speaking at a scientific level, where there is real evidence.
You say almost all scientists agree. Who determined that, and how? It's nothing but a propaganda statement. Then you make claims about the science, like "(it) can be measured in any number of ways," and "...flies in the face of so much data". You don't have a clue as to what the methods of measurement are, or what the data is. Those are propaganda statements.
As a scientist, I look at the methods of measurement and find that they are a sham. Computer models are the only basis for the claims of carbon dioxide causing global warming. Real measurements show the opposite. For example, it has been found that ice is increasing over land at Antarctica and Greenland. This is because of increased precipitation due to oceans warming. Propagandists shamelessly deny such scientifically measured facts.
Gary Novak
www.nov55.com
Crackpot science
Gary,
The science establishment has accepted that global warming is a reality. The notion that human activity has major environmental affects has been proven time and again. I'm sure good scientists can disagree to what degree the affects of global warming has, but no one can disagree that there's a lot more carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth is rising.
You've questioned my science creditials, but I actually would challenge you to offer comprehensive data to support your position. An M.S. in Microbiology doesn't necessarily make you a scientist either friend.
There's plenty of studies that I have seen that affirm global warming. Pew has done a good job of compiling some of the data for lay people like myself:
http://www.pewclimate.org/
Its clear to me that global climate change is a reality. Its clear to most scientists. Its even clear to some of the most conservative politicians and ministers. Instead of calling us all propgandists, why not offer up some real science to discuss?
Standards are the First Concern.
Stephen.
The first question which I raised is the method of addressing the subject. Your generalizations and conclusions are not of the nature that scientists use to represent a subject.
Starting with sentence one, you say, "The science establishment has accepted..." It's not possible to represent what the science establishment has accepted. Scientists evolve their knowledge by questioning everything.
In sentence two, you say, "The notion that...has been proven time and again." There is no such thing as proof of anything beyond figure of speech, which is not suitable for a controversial and complex issue in science. No one in science would speak of proof even in more certain areas than global warming. And in those rare occasions when proof might be mentioned as a figure of speech, at least a reference to the evidence would be expected.
You refer to the Pew climate web site. All I could find in a quick check is the same old propaganda. Someone says such things as temperature increase has been found, and then through indirect evidence, one finds that they are referring to ice melting in the Arctic. There isn't any question that ice is melting in the Arctic. It's caused by oceans heating for unknown reasons, which always occurs when an ice age is beginning. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the propagandist uses the warming of the ocean and ice melting as a tool to promote the claim that humans are the cause through carbon dioxide production, which is a fraudulent extension of the point being made.
The burden of proof (figuratively speaking) is on the persons who claim causation, not the persons who claim there is no causation. The absence of something is not proveable. I do explain a lot of background science on my web site showing that the claims are false in regard to carbon dioxide being the cause of global warming.
Gary Novak
www.nov55.com
Burden of proof
Actually the burden of proof is on your Gary. If a concept is widely accepted by the scientific community and body politics, and you are offering a countervailing view, then you must present your data for review. There's a reason why global warming is an accepted reality, scientists presented the data which has built a broad consensus over the last few decades.
The Problem is Absolutizing Authority
Stephen.
You are claiming authority must be accepted without evidence or explanation, and I must prove it wrong. Promoting authority without evidence or explanation is not science; it's fascism. Attempts to disprove propaganda are not possible until something exists to disprove. Propaganda does not produce anything to disprove. The burden of proof remains on the propagandists, and they have never produced anything resembling honest explanations or science.
I mentioned the example of propagandists showing that ice is melting in the Arctic and claiming that it shows humans are the cause through carbon dioxide. That's nothing but propaganda. The ice melts over oceans at the beginning of every ice age due to oceans heating for some reason other than humans or carbon dioxide in the air, exactly as occurring at this time.
You make overwhelming assertions about the science without reference to specifics or evidence which can be evaluated in a rational way. That's how propaganda is used to overwhelm society. If you know nothing about the science or evidence, you aren't supposed to be making claims about it.
My original purpose was to describe nature of the propaganda and its moral implications without getting into the details of the science, because this forum is about religion rather than science, and I have the details of the science on my web site. I've been mentioning some of the science.
Gary Novak
www.nov55.com
Is this about global warming?
I'm not sure we need a lecture on proganda. The science about global warming isn't propoganda. Its data. Its facts. I'm just asking for you evidence about the temperature of the earth, pollution, etc.
It's about Morality.
Stephen.
I think society desperately needs a lecture on propaganda, and global warming demonstrates why. If society had been learning proper standards of acquiring knowledge and handling realities in terms of representation, evaluation, rationality, such railroad jobs as occurring with global warming would not be possible.
Christ taught this. He said to look and listen to acquire evidence and judge for ourselves what it right (Mat 13:16)(Mark 8:18)(Luke 10:23,24 12:54,55,57). You are saying the opposite—that people should not think for themselves but accept and promote anything authorities say.
When you say you want some science from me, you need to explain what it is that you want. Science is too large for open ended vagaries. You say you want something on the temperature of the earth. Here's something: The oceans are heating up, while the atmosphere is not. All real studies show this. For example, studies show that ice is increasing over land at Antarctica and Greenland while melting over the oceans. This is because there is more precipitation everywhere, due to increased ocean temperatures, causing more snowfall over land, while the atmosphere is not heating enough to melt it.
I describe a large amount of such science on my web site, and there is no need to repeat it here.
Gary Novak
www.nov55.com
Thinking for yourself
I absolutely am not saying people should not think for themselves. Indeed, God gave us a brain to reason. I often part ways with my fundamentalist friends on the point of accepting things spoon fed to them from church.
What I'm suggesting to you however is that you've come onto this website suggesting that global warming is not true and is in fact propoganda. You've made this argument without providing any compelling or substantive evidence of such claim.
There's a reason why there's a consensus around global warming. Anyone who takes a look at the available data can see that the temperature of the earth is increasing. We can see what's happening to the ice pack at the poles. We can document the changing migration of species. We also can measure with some precision the amount of pollution we've thrown into the atmosphere. We can see the affects of pollution of cities creating warmer microclimates. The data is abundant and the conclusions from the foremost scientists in the world (with Ph.D.s and significant research experience) have come to data-driven conclusions that most of us lay people can see in our changing weather patterns.
You're just wrong on this one. If you are committed to science, go back and take a look at the evidence. If you draw a different conclusion explain yourself.
Standards are Still the Problem.
Stephen.
Now that you mentioned a few specific points, some criticism can be based upon them.
First, now one could disagree with the points which you stated. You said, "We can see what's happening to the ice pack at the poles. We can document the changing migration of species. We also can measure with some precision the amount of pollution we've thrown into the atmosphere. We can see the affects of pollution of cities creating warmer microclimates."
Second, I made some of the same points myself.
Third, to claim that such results are due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or that humans are the cause is a serious scientific misrepresentation, but an even bigger social fraud, because science cannot produce much for answers on the most complex question it has ever faced, while people have a responsibility not to misrepresent the scientific vagaries as unquestionable fact, and then set about rearranging the social order at the expense of low class and vulnerable persons.
Gary Novak
www.nov55.com
How a Psychology Professor States It.
Here's the first three paragraphs of an article which says the same thing:
A PRESCRIPTION FOR PEACE: TEACHING TOMMY IN AN ERA OF FASCISM
by Doug Soderstrom
11/26/06
Smirking Chimp.com
In looking back at my own education, I have come to the conclusion that much of what I learned was a matter of propaganda. And I am sorry to say that it wasn't until "that sorrowful day in September" that I decided to take a serious look at the history of our country; and it was that look which has made all the difference, which no doubt changed my life. As a result, I began to understand: the sacrosanct privilege of being a citizen in a democratic republic; what it means to suffer "the swift retaliation" of those who are incapable of understanding the irrefragable duty to question one's country; and what has become a determined need to challenge the insanity of a nation having apparently gone mad in an outrageously absurd rush to war.
But then, after having spent forty years as a psychologist teaching at the college level, my sentiments have not changed; we, as teachers, have done a terrible thing. We have chosen to mislead our students. We have led them to believe things that are simply not true. Rather than educating them, arming them with the knowledge necessary to understand "the realities of the life," we have inadvisably placed an inordinate emphasis upon preparing youth for the workplace, essentially training them to become robot-like cogs in the machinery of mankind.
Rather than vesting them with the power to think for themselves, the power to reason in a critical manner, the sagacity to understand the complex nature of the moral dilemmas set before us, we have chosen to domesticate our youth through the power of propaganda, deciding that it is preferable that they become flag-waving patriots, loyalists, apologists chauvinistically pledging their allegiance to the Fatherland.
etc.
posted by Gary Novak
www.nov55.com