" If we aren't to give a whit what others think, then there is no point in visiting this site."
Poor choice of words perhaps. What I mean is I want to get past ideology to the actual facts. I don't care if liberals think GMOs are evil and pesticides do more harm than good or if rightwingers think greenhouse gases don't affect the world's climate and mutations and natural selection couldn't have produced life as we know it. I don't care if animal rights activists think a low-fat diet is better for human health.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, if you start with a theory before you have the facts, you find facts consistent with your theories instead of developing theories consistent with the facts.

It's an interesting analogy to laws having been used to stop tobacco companies from claiming their product doesn't cause health problems.

My thought is it's fraud if you say your product is somehow exceptional, i.e. our cigarettes have lower health risks, this fuels does not contribute to climate change, or this homeopathic medicine that really works. But if you promote the product with broad conspiracy theories such as "Cigarettes are safe." "Burning stuff doesn't cause climate change." "Homeopathy is real." "Organic foods are more healthful than GMOs," I think it's up to the buyer to evaluate those claims. It's a fine line. When a pharmacy sells alternative medicines on a shelf right next to scientific medicine, maybe falsely representing them as evidence-based medicine, IMHO they've veered into fraud.

I absolutely think companies like Exxon are lying, really shamelessly lying, posting fake videos that appear to be opinions of disinterested people from various demographic groups, to push the costs of their product onto future generations. I'll leave it to the courts to say when they've crossed the line into fraud. But I don't think it's fraud to say openly, "I make product X, and I think product X is safe," even when that statement is wrong according to science. There has to be some caveat emptor.

I just stumbled across this article this morning:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/09/ske...

Interesting how closely it parallels our discussion.

Excellent point! I shall remember to use that example.

Jan

This is a dream. It is a Good dream.

Jan, bravo him!

"Cooking? With Methane?" she asks (innocent look; big brown eyes)...

Jan

And cooking with gas!

CO3 is not dangerous...it is just CO2. As with any substance, it has to be handled with knowledge of its nature. CO2 is an aerial 'fertilizer' that is promoting increased growth of plant life around the world. If you get too much of it, it can be bad for a planet but it takes a LOT to get to that point. CO2 has been as high as 7000 ppm and as low as 180 ppm in Earth's history; right now it is about at 400 ppm.

The temperature has not become warmer for about 20 years now. Also, man's contribution to the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small - less than 1%.

Jan

"if you are saying you agree with a reported consensus on such a matter of medical study indicating a health risk, than yes, you are part of that collective."
This means anyone who knows something outside his own field is a collectivist. I accept that that cellular respiration occurs in the mitochodrion, not because I've reviewed the primary sources for myself but because that's the consensus of people who study this stuff. Even in my own field, there are things I accept without being an expert on those specific points.
"Why is anybody being called a liar at all? "
Yes. Liar would be appropriate if we saw some private communication in which he admitted to saying something he intended to mislead. Here it's just an epithet that implies we know what's going on in his mind.

I have probably done the same thing as he Hartmann in the topic of natural medicine. If someone has a disease that science says is not curable but can be slowed down by a painful treatment, and there is a view contrary to scientific medicine that maybe some homeopathic treatment would work, I have an emotional urge to call the homeopath a "liar" and stop the bogus "debate". We all wish the homeopath were right or at least that the evidence were "debatable". The hypothetical alternative medicine proponent makes all these argument that I'm just blinding going alone with the oncology establishment that is funded by drug research without becoming an expert myself. A homeopath offering false hope seems contemptible and makes me want to say liar as an epithet even if I can't back up that they're being intentionally deceptive. Fortunately, I don't have the emotional urge to jail them.

I feel the same way about climate change, although I don't think addressing it will be anything like a grave disease. The technology will come along to address the problem and people who can't handle results they don't like will be able to come back to reality once engineers and scientists have a solution.

I agree with the basic facts about the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and world population. I wish somehow that all led to evidence that scientists' understanding of the planet were wrong. The nature of science is it will find problems in the current models and better models will be created. I have no idea what future research will find. But I can't just take the answer I want and then find a few data points and discount reality.

Exactly. I remember laughing out loud when Al Gore trumped up the discovery of the Ice Man in the Alps, because the ice had retreated enough to expose his well preserved body. Global warming. He failed to acknowledge that 5000 years ago it was warm enough for the man to get up there and die in a crevice in the rocks from the arrow wounds he had sustained.

And then consider the Viking settlements in Greenland in the centuries around 1000 AD. And that same hot period drove the Anasazi off the Colorado Plateau when springs dried up.

Wow. A tough go no doubt, but at some point your time is more valuable.

I, after knowing the guy for over 20 years, just broke all ties with a hardcore liberal friend of mine because of what you talk about. He'd, in realizing he's losing an argument, resorts to those tactics. "What are you saying?" He eventually resorted to mentioning something about me abusing my kids (knowing I never would). That's when I pulled the plug. These people really are sick people. And, they are in charge now. Something similar happened in Nazi Germany and I honestly think it's time for people to start paying attention...

Who can argue that the Chinese government doesn't have a hand in this? I can't. Because it still retains the fantasy that it can suppress market demands (i.e. the demand for clean air, water, soil, etc.) in moral terms (i.e. for economic growth, lol). Statist absurdities abound.

You know what's odd? Doesn't that anger seem out of place? You realize that there are a lot of people who will never admit they were wrong on this, no matter what facts are uncovered? It's some sort of partisan-like psychosis...

Sure. They'll start putting people in prison for expressing doubt in the popular theories. That's what they do. As per the chapter "White Blackmail", though, they'll start by taking your kids. Then, they'll take your property. Then, you'll get blamed and will have to go to a camp about the same time.

I've been called a terrorist because I believe that medical decisions should be between families and their doctors (vs. the government). That's a real wakeup call.

Make no mistake - the hard left are master linguists.

Exactly!

It sounds like you still believe in the hoax. The WUWT site is a good place to start finding out all about it; they have links to many science sites, including some not on their side. I'd argue it further here, but I'm not sure it would be welcome.

Especially if they use real quotes as they come down the pike...and point out their double speak too!

Well, CG, I'll decide for myself what to give a whit about or not. What lefties or righties or others think about scientific claims, pseudo-scientific claims, or fantasies may very well have an effect on my (and your) life so it may be worth while to give a whit about what they think. If we aren't to give a whit what others think, then there is no point in visiting this site. Yes, you learn things by observation and experimentation, but the data collected must be sufficient and relevant to make predictions. As bsmith51 pointed out, and I concurred, is there is insufficient data to predict mega weather trends by observing a few decades of data just as you can't predict stock market trends by observing it for 20 minutes. bsmith51 also used a bit of humor to illustrate the absurdity and I offered up an additional absurdity in the vein of his last statement. Hopefully bsmith51 got a smile out of it. You missed the point. Too bad.

That was funny...no one is arguing if the climate is changing; it is, and dramatically. But liberal antilectuals don't know the difference between 'Environment and climate or today's weather in one part of the world and climate. If we took them to northern Africa to see the snow fall in august or the snow falls in the upper Midwest and Colorado this past august; nevermind the building ice sheets on the north and south poles, [you know, where greenwar or is it green peace got stuck and we had to bust them out of the ice?], they wouldn't believe it.
But the worst of it is, if you were to bring this to their attention or try to have a discussion...they call you names. They have no idea how valuable carbon is to life, our atmosphere nor our planet...all they can think about is oil, oil is not even created by fossils, but you can't talk about that...they just scream louder while making up stuff.

To keep this light hearted and in perspective:...a so called scientist just announced that 'sea turtles' are causing climate warming...can you believe that?!

Now that proves that it's not your footprint; I say we celebrate and start walking all over everything!
Laughing my shinny butt off...liberals say the darnedest things...Didn't Art Linkletter do a show about that? hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaapfpfpf.

CG; I think it would help here to distinguish generic climate change with the alleged anthropogenic effect on climate. It is these suppositions that are driving serious policy implementations that affect the standard of living, the very well-being of people the world over.

I don't think anybody is denying the reality of climate change. It changes all the time, always has, always will. I have posted in the past that it was only about 13,000 years ago that New England was under a mile thick ice sheet. I have seen the glacial striations on top of Mt Washington in New Hampshire. And look at it now. That is extreme climate change!

But, the science is far from settled of the role that CO2 plays in climate change. It is said to be a greenhouse gas, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to atmospheric water vapor. So why the unsupported fixation on CO2?

Oh, I get it. The fossil fuel connection. The politics of energy and the control of people's standard of living. Note the key word here: Control.

Unfortunately what we are talking about is actually not so much about science, although it is a component, but about politics. Which is why I posted this under the category of politics.