Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[suspectnumber961]

Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program: Scientific American

Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.

...

In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts, who blogs at WattsUpWithThat.com.

The documents also reveal a communications strategy aimed at "keep[ing] opposing voices out" of publications such as Forbes Magazine, where the audience is "reliably anti-climate."

...

Each module would inject skepticism into the scientific consensus on climate change. Example statements in the report include: "Whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy;" "Models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial;" and "Whether CO2 [carbon dioxide] is a pollutant is controversial." The modules would also teach that the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is "controversial," arguing that carbon dioxide is crucial to life on Earth and that natural emissions are 20 times those of human emissions.

...

Creating controversy

In fact, while some of these statements may be politically controversial, they are not particularly scientifically controversial. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, which synthesizes global scientific findings about climate change, states: "Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."

...

Dissembler | Define Dissembler at Dictionary.com

* to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program: Scientific American

Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.

...

Four points :

1. You are 72 hours too late with this.

2. One of the documents seems to be a fake.

3. You have failed to even slightly look into the background before posting this.

4. You're on my ignore list.

Bye.

[Arragonis]

From here.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

...
Each module would inject skepticism into the scientific consensus on climate change. Example statements in the report include: "Whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy;" "Models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial;" and "Whether CO2 [carbon dioxide] is a pollutant is controversial." The modules would also teach that the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is "controversial," arguing that carbon dioxide is crucial to life on Earth and that natural emissions are 20 times those of human emissions...

[B][I]In fact, while some of these statements may be politically controversial, they are not particularly scientifically controversial...

Is skepticism a bad thing? Without it we would continue believing the world is flat, at the center of the universe. It took a very long time (generations) for there to be a true and accurate consensus on the matter. Meteorologists have a very difficult time predicting just what the local weather will do tomorrow, so skepticism of predictions for the entire world over the course of hundreds of years is reasonable.

I'm not agreeing with the way The Heartland Institute is going about voicing their opinion, but you must appreciate that they have a different perspective on the matter, possibly for reasons other than they are made of pure evil. If you take a step back and view your position from a 3rd person perspective, you may be shocked to find that your approach to the subject is a mirror image to your opponent.

Life is a difficult balance of diversity and unity. Without diversity the wheel would likely be triangle shaped, and without unity man could not land on the moon.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." -Michael Crichton

[Olympiadis]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Leaked documents from the free-market conservative organization The Heartland Institute reveal a plan to create school educational materials that contradict the established science on climate change.
In the area of climate change, the leaked documents revealed that the group funds vocal climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), and New Zealand geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month). They've also pledged $90,000 to skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts,

Good!
More critical thinking and more information presented would do everyone some good.
This trendy rash of new young "climate scientists" along with the politicization of the issue has gone way too far in perverting, corrupting, and discrediting real science. Sadly, there may be little hope in ever restoring the public confidence in science unless partisan control over research funding is removed from the picture, and the peer review process is restored back to what it once was.

[Frank Lee]

The Heartland Institution hardly qualifies as critical thinking.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Is skepticism a bad thing?

For fake greed driven science it is a bad thing.
Real science invites skepticism, critical thinking, more information and alternatives.

As far as dooms day environmental predictions go do your self a favor and google search 2 things:
"environmental predictions that came true"
and
"failed environmental predictions"
See for your self how many claims were made and how many came true.

The problem I find is all these predictions have been made, dooms dates have come and gone, nothing happened and some times the predictions get recycled and extended out another 20 to 70 years. Other wise not a single one has even came close.
With the dooms day sayers impeccable record of failure, why would we start believing them now?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The Heartland Institution hardly qualifies as critical thinking.

Agreed - but do any of Suspect's postings qualify either ?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

As far as dooms day environmental predictions go do your self a favor and google search 2 things:
"environmental predictions that came true"
and
"failed environmental predictions"
See for your self how many claims were made and how many came true.

The problem I find is all these predictions have been made, dooms dates have come and gone, nothing happened and some times the predictions get recycled and extended out another 20 to 70 years. Other wise not a single one has even came close.
With the dooms day sayers impeccable record of failure, why would we start believing them now?

The failure of one prediction, or even a whole series of predictions, has no bearing on the veracity of an argument. Doomsday is inevitable, but fortunately those events usually take a very long time.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The failure of one prediction, or even a whole series of predictions, has no bearing on the veracity of an argument. Doomsday is inevitable, but fortunately those events usually take a very long time.

Well, kind of except a lot of the predictions had a timescale attached and they didn't match reality in the timescale chosen - because they were based on models, and models are flawed.

There is a nice new blog about this called "All Models are Wrong" which (ironically) is run by a modeller - one to watch if you are interested in the science and not just campaigning nonsense.

Even though the scientist running this blog thinks models are/could be good she has also banned name calling, just in case anything thinks I'm sensitive or something.