Global Warming Fraud?

[OrchardDweller]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Read entire text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index....y.SenateReport


New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.

Read full text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-b35d0842fed8

[Zeno Swijtink]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Read entire text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index....y.SenateReport


New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence.

Read full text here:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-b35d0842fed8

[Zeno Swijtink]

Consensus?


The following is a list of scientists who are signatories to this open letter dated Dec. 13, 2007, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, questioning conclusions of the IPCC report that are contradicted by recent major scientific studies.


Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
/snip/

Is this letter for real?? I have not found any other "source" for it, except this website from the National Post, a conservative Canadian newspaper that a while ago published the lie that Iran had ordered Jews to wear an identifying badge in public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

There is also no return address for this letter. How is Ban Ki-Moon supposed to reply to his mail?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Yup... this guy has it about right, I think.

https://www.spiked-online.com/index..../article/4194/

Always beware when the market extremist takes on the mantle of democracy!

What would democracy in a worldwide problem like global climate change look like?

Let's get some basic facts

I's a big world out there:



How has the world contributed to this cumulative problem:


Percentage of World Carbon Emissions, 1900-1999

What's going on right now:


Per Capita Emissions, 2002


What would democracy in a worldwide problem like global climate change look like? It's going to be rough to face the world democracy on this!!

[lynn]

Clancy...I simply don't believe that you are as ignorant of the facts (and mainstream news) as you pretend to be, nor do I think you are so stupid that you believe that the scientific method is equal to the 'group think' of almost 'any group'.

Oh, stop it Clancy...I just read stuff here and there - and don't pay much attention to the 'mainstream news'...So, I know there's at least some scientists debating the whole 'climate change media hype' as some of them might call it...

Whatever your motive is, your methods and lack of intellectual integrity in this thread are as entertaining as the Fox News commentators you're mimicking.

Gee Clancy - again!!...I haven't had a t.v. for years, and have never watched Fox news!...Again, I just read stuff once in awhile...And if having a different perspective than you, or a bunch of other people, just makes you assume I possess a 'lack of intelletual integrity'...Well, be my guest in assuming all that...

Although, I wouldn't advise you to try and capitalize on your not-so-great psycho-analytical skills...

toootallloooo.....

[lynn]

Willie...But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism. I don't consider the very few opposing experts to be anti-intellectual because they presumably have their own good reasons (corruption by petroleum interests or a skewed interpretation of facts that they well understand, etc.). But you have no expertise, at least none that I know of. You are a lay person.

Oh, I love that Willie!...If it's a layperson, who doesn't have tons of time, or training, or inclination to read all that scientific stuff, and not follow in lock-step that 'near consensus', it's 'anti-intellectualism'....but if it's a 'real' intellectual who doesn't agree with the 'near-consensus'...of course, that doesn't mean they are 'anti-intellectual'...just a little greedy, or skewed maybe...Gee Willie!!...Great conclusion!!...

Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....

[lynn]

Willie..."But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism"....


You could also elaborate on what you mean by 'definite stance', 'near-consensus', 'anti-intellectualism', and 'skewed interpretation'...

---------------------------------


I doff my hat to a superior analytical mind.

Uh, oh...Now, THAT is scary...

---------------------------------

Now, if any layperson can explain how a layperson is suppose to know when a scientist has a 'skewed interpretation of facts' of a 'near-consensus', and all scientists can agree on that laypersons explanation...

I just might doff my hat to THEM!!...

[d-cat]

You could also elaborate on what you mean by 'definite stance', 'near-consensus', 'anti-intellectualism', and 'skewed interpretation'...

"near-consensus"? - they were saying it was a consensus just a while ago

Excellent posts and points Lynn!

[d-cat]

"...independent Americans have to be scared, as well as shamed into conforming to an international agenda calling for Earth stewardship..."

'Greens' movement may have darker agenda
https://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2236

[d-cat]

Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....

Copernicus believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and was scorned and even thrown into prison for speaking up against the "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. Luckily, some listened to him. I wonder which side some of the people on this thread would have been on...

[Braggi]

...
The mainstream media’s response to these recent scientific developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been – utter silence. ...

Actually, and very sadly, that's all that's in the papers recently. No actual fact based reporting, just this Exxon paid for nonsense.

There really is no global warming, I guess, The polar caps are melting because ... well, I guess we just don't know, we can't know, we don't want to know. Let's all party. Heck, they didn't need 400 experts to come up with this crap. Rush Limbaugh has been denying you can harm the environment for decades. Just tune into Rush.

You don't need science.

-Jeff

[d-cat]

They aren't saying the globe isn't warming. They're saying it's not catastrophic and it's not due to man; that it's a natural cycle due to the sun's output. I think that is a pretty important point to understand.

Kennedy appears to not understand this either:

John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0

Actually, and very sadly, that's all that's in the papers recently. No actual fact based reporting, just this Exxon paid for nonsense.

There really is no global warming, I guess, The polar caps are melting because ... well, I guess we just don't know, we can't know, we don't want to know. Let's all party. Heck, they didn't need 400 experts to come up with this crap. Rush Limbaugh has been denying you can harm the environment for decades. Just tune into Rush.

You don't need science.

-Jeff

[d-cat]

Columbus also reportedly took a lot of heat for believing that the earth was round and for going against the flat-earth consensus. But now they're calling scientists who don't go with the "consensus" flat-earthers. They should actually be calling the people who won't hear anything other than the "consensus" the flat-earthers!

[Zeno Swijtink]

Columbus also reportedly took a lot of heat for believing that the earth was round and for going
against the flat-earth consensus.

The Ancient and Medieval cosmos as depicted in Peter Apian's Cosmographia (Antwerp, 1539).


The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth.
Even Aristotle did not believe this.

A very common myth, indeed, apparently invented by the USA writer Washington Irving (1783-1859),
whose historical fiction was mistaken by his readers for fact.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/hist...97Russell.html

Like a Michael Crichton, who may unwittingly have enforced in many a conservative the belief
that people walked the Earth with dinosaurs.

https://www.christianpost.com/articl...ith_Man%3F.htm

The sorry state of education in this country!

[Zeno Swijtink]

They aren't saying the globe isn't warming. They're saying it's not catastrophic and it's not due to man; that it's a natural
cycle due to the sun's output. I think that is a pretty important point to understand.

They are saying this (now, since they have lately changed their tune) in press releases and on conservative blogs.
But, please, give me a scientific climate modeling study that fits the data with this hypothesis!
Then we can, as lay people, start following the discussion about that study in the scientific literature, rather then depend on a war of
words, images, and videos, that will not bring us any closer.

[d-cat]

Great - more reason for the "environmentalists" to stop using this term!

The Ancient and Medieval cosmos as depicted in Peter Apian's Cosmographia (Antwerp, 1539).


The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth.
Even Aristotle did not believe this.

A very common myth, indeed, apparently invented by the USA writer Washington Irving (1783-1859),
whose historical fiction was mistaken by his readers for fact.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/hist...97Russell.html

Like a Michael Crichton, who may unwittingly have enforced in many a conservative the belief
that people walked the Earth with dinosaurs.

https://www.christianpost.com/articl...ith_Man%3F.htm

The sorry state of education in this country!

[theindependenteye]

Friends—

It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."

Not that there isn't a point to it all. Maybe some lurkers will learn something and be persuaded. Maybe some debaters will sharpen their research & writing skills. And definitely many varieties of irrational quarrel techniques will go through evolutionary refinement for application to daily functions, e.g. destroying relationships, etc.

In the current debate, i guess I'm on the side of the alarmists. While i don't trust Voices of Authority any more than I trust myself, there does come a point when it's foolhardy — for the sake of your own ass if not the rest of the planet — to trust the best evidence, and to me that suggests a very high likelihood of human-aggravated global warming and potential disasters.

There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about. I imagine there are still arguments put forth somewhere that smoking is a healthy way to purify the lungs. And unquestionably the workings of science are intertwined with politics: who gets the grants, who funds the studies, how is one's career affected by disputing the consentual realities? So skepticism is always warranted.

But at a certain point, there's the question of action. Studies of the effects of smoking were never "definitive," and though people went on dying, the threat to a major industry suggested that the issue "warranted further study."

So in the present situation, the threats are what? Economic dislocations from strictures on industrial growth? Expanding government regulation? Making fools of ourselves? I dunno: I'm not an Exxon executive, and they're paid to know.

But you know, I have health insurance, even though it's possible I might just drop dead tomorrow. I have property insurance even though I've never collected anything from it. Theft or hospital bills are risks I don't choose to take, because there's enough evidence that suggests to me I might be sorry otherwise.

Likewise, there's enough evidence — a vast mass of it, in fact — that suggests we're doing something to the Earth and might be sorry about it at some point. The results of action would, at worst, result in world-wide economic depression; at best, in creation of new industries, less flight of wealth to oil producers, a healthier environment, etc. That's all debatable too.

But whether the effects of human consumption make the shit hit the fan in two years or a hundred years, it's probably gonna hit the fan. It just seems more sensible to me that the risks of doing nothing vastly outweigh the risks of doing something, and that the benefits of the latter may likewise be immeasurably greater.

Not expecting, however, to change any minds, since human intransigence isn't really caused by humans but is just part of nature.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

[Willie Lumplump]

I just read stuff here and there - and don't pay much attention to the 'mainstream news'

I think it's wonderful that your "here and there" sources report the frequent international conferences on climatology and the nearly universal agreement among participants that the earth is warming and that man very likely is the cause. And it's great that your sources tell you that all the major climate models converge around a warming of 3.5 degrees in this century and that there is a small but significant probability of much greater warming. Since you're already aware of these events, you're in a much better position to dispute them.

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie...But for a lay person to take a definite stance against what amounts to a near-consensus in a highly technical field, is, as I say, an act of anti-intellectualism. I don't consider the very few opposing experts to be anti-intellectual because they presumably have their own good reasons (corruption by petroleum interests or a skewed interpretation of facts that they well understand, etc.). But you have no expertise, at least none that I know of. You are a lay person.

Oh, I love that Willie!...If it's a layperson, who doesn't have tons of time, or training, or inclination to read all that scientific stuff, and not follow in lock-step that 'near consensus', it's 'anti-intellectualism'....but if it's a 'real' intellectual who doesn't agree with the 'near-consensus'...of course, that doesn't mean they are 'anti-intellectual'...just a little greedy, or skewed maybe...Gee Willie!!...Great conclusion!!...

Anti-intellectualism isn't necessarily identified with any particular scientific opinion. A scientist may disagree with a majority conclusion and still be an intellectual because he bases his disagreement on facts that he well understands. On the other hand, if you as a lay person disagree with the opinions of a large majority but are unable to refute those majority opinions with your own informed interpretations, you open yourself to charges of anti-intellectualism. That's the way I look at it. Maybe there are better ways of looking at it, but I think that my way is, by any definition, reasonable.

Although, I'd hate to think of what would happen in the 'science world' - if all scientists at all times NEVER questioned that 'near-consensus'!!!....

But that's my point. YOU are NOT a scientist, and therefore it's unlikely that you have a rational basis for questioning the opinions of the vast majority of experts. If I'm wrong and you do in fact have a rational argument, I'm all ears to hear it. Argue away, and I'll follow along as well as my very limited understanding of this field will permit. But appealing to the authority of small-minority opinion when you have no idea yourself of the details of the argument is not, it seems to me, good judgment, and I'd even go so far as to call it anti-intellectual.

[Willie Lumplump]

They aren't saying the globe isn't warming. They're saying it's not catastrophic and it's not due to man; that it's a natural cycle due to the sun's output. I think that is a pretty important point to understand.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There have been hundreds of studies of just this point, and all have reached the same conclusion: Increased solar radiation can account for only a tiny fraction of the global warming that's occurring.

Kennedy appears to not understand this either: John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0

John Stossel is a notoriously unreliable right-wing propagandist who regularly incorporates lies into his presentations.

[Willie Lumplump]

The idea that people in Columbus's time believed that the earth was a flat disk is itself a myth. Even Aristotle did not believe this.

Of course you're quite right about this. It's been known since very ancient times that the earth is not flat. Even the earliest sailors must have observed that the mast of an approaching ship appeared over the horizon before the rest of the ship did, something that could not happen if the earth were flat.

[Willie Lumplump]

Friends—It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."

I've changed my mind on several occasions and been persuaded to doubt on still more.

There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about.

Well, not quite. Dispute follows evidence. If there is no believable counter-evidence to a proposition, there is no dispute, although the possibility of dispute can't be ruled out in the future.

[d-cat]

Hi IndyEye,

It's good advice to play it safe as you suggest. But to really play it safe, I think one should look into The United Nations, the people behind it (the Rockefellers for one), and their agenda (under the guise of internationalism) before coming to any conclusion about which is the safe side to be on. Also, the CFR should be looked into, as all UN ambassadors are members (the last time I checked anyway). I remember some links and info on the Ron Paul/UN thread regarding some of these subjects.

I remember Gore a few years back touting NAFTA as being good for the US, as well as his debate about it with Ross Perot on Larry King. I believe Gore could be another globalist helping to push in a one-world government, known as the "New World Order" (Bush Sr and Bill Clinton spoke of the New World Order and videos are available of this on YouTube). I understand that Gore also is a member of the CFR.

I recently heard one of the Rothschilds (who has written a book on man-made global warming for children) on radio explaining that the reason the polar caps on Mars are melting is because Mars is closer to the sun than the Earth! Very odd, coming from a well-learned Rothschild. He then went on to explain the science of man-made global warming.

Also, there was a book in the 60's called The Report From Iron Mountain about a supposed secret government meeting where it was discussed how the masses could continue to be controlled if there were no more wars. One of the discussions was about creating a story about a climate catastrophe to keep people scared, and willing to submit to a global government. Whether this book was a hoax or not, I do not know. But I do believe that if it were real, there would be people saying that it is a hoax. Whichever the case, I do find it interesting that it was being written about in the 60s. Some say that man-made global warming is to the left what the war on terror is to the right. A way of keeping people frightened and easy to control. It's known as the "problem-reaction-solution" paradigm and there is info available on this on the web.

Anyway, these are some of the reasons why I am cautious, and not buying hook, line and sinker into this man-made catastrophic global warming theory. Just my two cents. Others' mileage may vary.

Peace and joy to you too IndyEye :)

Friends—

It's always been curious to me that in the approximately ten years I've been part of these kinds of discussions, I've never known anyone to change their mind or say, "You're right, I was wrong."

Not that there isn't a point to it all. Maybe some lurkers will learn something and be persuaded. Maybe some debaters will sharpen their research & writing skills. And definitely many varieties of irrational quarrel techniques will go through evolutionary refinement for application to daily functions, e.g. destroying relationships, etc.

In the current debate, i guess I'm on the side of the alarmists. While i don't trust Voices of Authority any more than I trust myself, there does come a point when it's foolhardy — for the sake of your own ass if not the rest of the planet — to trust the best evidence, and to me that suggests a very high likelihood of human-aggravated global warming and potential disasters.

There's hardly a scientific question where there's not dispute — that's what science is about. I imagine there are still arguments put forth somewhere that smoking is a healthy way to purify the lungs. And unquestionably the workings of science are intertwined with politics: who gets the grants, who funds the studies, how is one's career affected by disputing the consentual realities? So skepticism is always warranted.

But at a certain point, there's the question of action. Studies of the effects of smoking were never "definitive," and though people went on dying, the threat to a major industry suggested that the issue "warranted further study."

So in the present situation, the threats are what? Economic dislocations from strictures on industrial growth? Expanding government regulation? Making fools of ourselves? I dunno: I'm not an Exxon executive, and they're paid to know.

But you know, I have health insurance, even though it's possible I might just drop dead tomorrow. I have property insurance even though I've never collected anything from it. Theft or hospital bills are risks I don't choose to take, because there's enough evidence that suggests to me I might be sorry otherwise.

Likewise, there's enough evidence — a vast mass of it, in fact — that suggests we're doing something to the Earth and might be sorry about it at some point. The results of action would, at worst, result in world-wide economic depression; at best, in creation of new industries, less flight of wealth to oil producers, a healthier environment, etc. That's all debatable too.

But whether the effects of human consumption make the shit hit the fan in two years or a hundred years, it's probably gonna hit the fan. It just seems more sensible to me that the risks of doing nothing vastly outweigh the risks of doing something, and that the benefits of the latter may likewise be immeasurably greater.

Not expecting, however, to change any minds, since human intransigence isn't really caused by humans but is just part of nature.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

[Zeno Swijtink]

Copernicus believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and was scorned and even thrown into prison for speaking up against the "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. Luckily, some listened to him. I wonder which side some of the people on this thread would have been on...
[/IMG]

Copernicus was never put in prison for his heliocentric theory. You confuse him with Galileo, who was put under house arrest. Please research your learning before spreading false rumors!

Copernicus did not just "believe" this. He based his theory on observations, by himself and others, and developed a mathematical model, with the Sun in the center, that provided best fit to these observations. He did not use publications like the National Post to "convert" people to "listen" to him. His work spoke for itself.

[d-cat]

The point isn't to quibble about Galileo or Corpernicus - the point is about not dismissing a view just because it isn't the status quo. Do you not agree with this?

Copernicus was never put in prison for his heliocentric theory. You confuse him with Galileo, who was put under house arrest. Please research your learning before spreading false rumors!

Copernicus did not just "believe" this. He based his theory on observations, by himself and others, and developed a mathematical model, with the Sun in the center, that provided best fit to these observations. He did not use publications like the National Post to "convert" people to "listen" to him. His work spoke for itself.

[Zeno Swijtink]

The point isn't to quibble about Galileo or Corpernicus - the point is about not dismissing a view just because it isn't the status quo. Do you not agree with this?

Of course I agree with this, to the extent that you can produce something more than videos and letters in questionable newspapers that have no return address. Introduce serious work from the people that you find interesting so we can have a look at it.

[d-cat]

The point isn't to quibble about Galileo or Corpernicus - the point is about not dismissing a view just because it isn't the status quo. Do you not agree with this?

Of course I agree with this, to the extent that you can produce something more than videos and letters in questionable newspapers that have no return address. Introduce serious work from the people that you find interesting so we can have a look at it.

Zeno,

If you agree with this, then why bother with all the Columbus stuff you posted. I only said it was reported that Columbus took heat for saying the world is round. Do you disagree that this has been reported?

And in regard to my point, who cares in this context if Galileo was under house arrest and not jailed. Does this info somehow make my point about the importance of looking at different viewpoints wrong?

You say now that you agree that minority viewpoints shouldn't be ignored, yet that has been your argument against the scientists who say global warming isn't catastrophic or man-made. This has been your big argument; that they are in the minority, and so their opinions are dismissable.

The things you choose to concentrate on aren't of much interest to me and seems to me like nitpicking details which I don't really care to be involved in. But for those who do, feel free.

Zeno, you have to understand that I don't really care what you think. I'm not here to try to persuade you and don't expect me to put a lot of effort into that. Believe what you want to believe. I post this stuff for people interested in looking into the subject. If you already "know" and have no interest in looking at the other side, that's ok with me. And if you want to believe that the govt and the UN are all good people with our best interests in mind, be my guest. But don't expect me to spend time with you arguing over the details of Columbus or Galileo over it. You're completely missing the point.

[d-cat]

Thanks for the articles. Interesting Gore quote:

In his speech at the climate change conference in Bali last week, Gore expressed some deeply anti-democratic views. He told an audience of 1,000, including NGOs, green campaigners and journalists, as well as UN representatives and government officials, that they should ‘feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference’. He suggested the audience should not be worried about being seen as a minority, a tiny brave group that recognises the ‘planetary emergency’ facing Earth and its inhabitants, but rather should consider it a ‘privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come’ (1).

Yup... this guy has it about right, I think.

https://www.spiked-online.com/index..../article/4194/

This one seems spot on, as well.

https://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

enjoy

[Clancy]

Interesting Gore quote:

[I]In his speech at the climate change conference in Bali last week, Gore expressed some deeply anti-democratic views...

Here's his quote IN context, and I applaud Mr. Gore;


There are two paths you can choose. They lead to two different futures. Not too long from now, when our children assess what you did here in Bali, what we in our generation did here in this world. As they look backward, at 2007, they will ask one of two questions. I don’t know which one they will ask, I know which one I prefer they ask, but trust me, they will ask one of these two questions.

They’ll look back and either they will ask, “What were you thinking? Didn’t you hear the IPCC four times unanimously warning the world to act? Didn’t you see the glaciers melting? Didn’t you see the North Polar ice cap disappearing? Didn’t you see the deserts growing and the droughts deepening and the crops drying up? Didn’t you see the sea level rising, didn’t you see the floods, didn’t you pay attention to what was going on? Didn’t you care? What were you thinking?”

Or they will ask a second question, one that I much prefer them ask. I want them to look back on this time and ask “How did you find the moral courage to successfully address a crisis that some many have said was impossible to address? How were you able to start the process that unleashed the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as a single global civilization?” And when they ask that question, I want you to tell them that you saw it as a privilege to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come. Instead of shaking our heads at the difficulty of this task and saying “woe is us, this is impossible, how can we do this? We’re so mad at the ones that are making it harder; we ought to feel a sense of joy that we have work that is worth doing that is so important to the future of all humankind. We ought to feel a sense of exhilaration that we are the people alive at a moment in history when we can make all the difference. That’s who you are. You have everything you need. We have everything we need, save perhaps political will. But political will is a renewable resource. Thank you very much.

Here's the full speech
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/pre...lay.asp?id=465

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno,

If you agree with this, then why bother with all the Columbus stuff you posted. I only said it was reported that Columbus took heat for saying the world is round. Do you disagree that this has been reported?

And in regard to my point, who cares in this context if Galileo was under house arrest and not jailed. Does this info somehow make my point about the importance of looking at different viewpoints wrong?

You say now that you agree that minority viewpoints shouldn't be ignored, yet that has been your argument against the scientists who say global warming isn't catastrophic or man-made. This has been your big argument; that they are in the minority, and so their opinions are dismissable.

The things you choose to concentrate on aren't of much interest to me and seems to me like nitpicking details which I don't really care to be involved in. But for those who do, feel free.

Zeno, you have to understand that I don't really care what you think. I'm not here to try to persuade you and don't expect me to put a lot of effort into that. Believe what you want to believe. I post this stuff for people interested in looking into the subject. If you already "know" and have no interest in looking at the other side, that's ok with me. And if you want to believe that the govt and the UN are all good people with our best interests in mind, be my guest. But don't expect me to spend time with you arguing over the details of Columbus or Galileo over it. You're completely missing the point.

The point of elaborating on your misinformation on Columbus or Copernicus is that, as you say, you are just "reporting" what others are "reporting."

You also do this with the issue of climate change, and get entangled in an endless web of misinformation and gossip, reducing everything to the level of world conspiracy theories.

If I am asking to show me some real studies and discuss them for me, the kind of work Galileo, Copernicus, and Columbus, a superb dead reckoning navigator who kept meticulous records of his voyages, stood for, you call this "nitpicking" details.

You must live in a different cognitive universe where all your reasoning reduces to ad hominem arguments, gleaned from talk radio and right wing blogs.

If you reread my messages you will see that I did not make the argument about majority vs minority viewpoints. That has not been my line. Scientific truth is not established by voting. My line has been the "nitpicking" one.