Please Log in to Vote.

4 out of 5 members found this useful.

Integral Obfuscation

Posted April 15th, 2011 by Jonathan Cobb in Climate Change

In Reference to:

Michael Zimmerman is just playing into the conspiracy theories. He acts like climate change is being put forward because of the monetary interests behind it. Really? You think those who would benefit from cap-and-trade are going to have more money to spend on propagating the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis than, say, the oil companies?

This is exactly how I've often feared that Integral can be misused. Oh yes, we take all these perspectives into account, and therefore climate deniers have a valid point, too. Well, this is where it collapses into Green. It goes from "include all perspectives" to "treat all perspectives as equal." And frankly, I think he's doing it deliberately.

What I found most laughable was when he talked about how presumptuous we are to make climate change the number one issue when many Americans disagree, and then go to talking about third world development to help them adapt to climate change. Perhaps he should try polling third world countries about climate change. Does he know, for instance, that Bangladesh, a country of about 165 million people, risks being almost entirely submerged underwater? Even if they weren't one of the poorest countries in the world, I doubt they'd be able to "adapt" to such a fate. It's easy for Americans not to care about climate change when we're not the ones who will face the brunt of it.

And his bashing of the IPCC seems to have no foundation at all except for a kind of iconoclastic grudge against their highly respected status. The IPCC's published work can be easily compared with other work in the field. In fact, the IPCC has in several cases underestimated the impact of climate change. For instance, sea levels have risen faster than they've predicted.

Micheal Zimmerman, stick to what you know. That obviously does not include climate change.

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted April 15th, 2011 by admin

This comment has been deleted by the author.

5 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Less denialism

Posted April 15th, 2011 by Mark Grammer in response to [Comment Deleted]

Especially procedural denialism, the kind of thing that would be funny if it were written by Douglas Adams and not actually being proposed as policy.

If this were the Titanic, there'd be some people shouting "iceberg" and some posh gentleman covering his wife's ears and saying, "Steady on! You'll give my wife tremors. There's no iceberg on this menu that I'm aware of or in the program. You might show a little more consideration for her nervous spirit not to mention interrupting our party so rudely!" To many approving nods and gestures all round. Or the engineer's approach: I've got 99 problems and an Iceberg of certain DOOM ain't one.

I know, we could have a singalong. Forget all about icebergs and flooding compartments. Anyway, the society of leisure forbids mention of icebergs and you never see them at any of the important parties.

Would you waste much time watering the message down until fools of that caliber got it? Or let them drown and save what you could?

If sarcasm doesn't convince, here's the smoking gun: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 2 members found this useful.

How

Posted April 16th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Less denialism

.► about London Bridge ? ♦

this will most likely not be popular, I know... I've never been a hustler that way

•

how fruminous . like a bandit ???

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

risk is not simple

Posted April 17th, 2011 by stefano in response to Less denialism

It just isn't that simple.

Did you know that there's a theory that had the Titanic not tried to avoid the iceberg, it would not have sunk?

The reason is that had the Titanic hit the ice head on, only the front compartment would have been damaged. The Titanic could withstand one compartment being flooded -- that was the point of compartments. But because they tried to avoid it, and critically, when it was already too late to fully avoid it, they instead hit it sideways and longways, which cut through not one compartment but several compartments all in a row. This the Titanic could not withstand.

A moral of the story with the Titanic is that they didn't understand the situation well enough to figure the safest course of action. That's not denialism, that's just people asking, hang on, wait, what are the consequences of acting? That's all about risk too. It just isn't a simple case of flipping the switch to the failsafe position.

Real life is full of complex situations where all options carry risk, and sure enough, some people will shout out "don't touch that!!" when they see people rushing in to "save the day."

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

global warming

Posted April 15th, 2011 by gillian ross

Well said Jonathan. I entirely agree with you. Interestingly, in the end, Michael is not actually disputing the reality of human induced global warming. If this is the case then surely giving credence to those who continue to deny it is serving to hold back any integral approaches to its resolution. The enemy on the issue is apathy not scientific distortion.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

the principle

Posted April 16th, 2011 by stefano

I've been reading about climate change for about 5 years now, noting all the news and discoveries etc., and I would suggest you spend some serious time researching the issues to verify what the assertions are based upon. Of course almost everybody is selfish, that part of it I agree with you. But that just means that figuring out the true picture takes a lot more work. Of course Americans don't give a fuck about Bangladeshis. But climate change is portrayed as an objective scientific argument, which means we need to focus on it's efficacy for public mass appeal and image, and if you just focus on trying to understand the science, it becomes watered down -- because as Ken Wilber said about Religion, and by extension, any moral issue, if you tie your moral issue to a science theory, what happens if that science theory changes? I really think we should keep the moral issue of selfishness neatly focussed on the moral issue of selfishness.

Here is a scenario and warning for you: the natural variability inherent in the climate system continues the already 15 years of no statistically significant warming for another 10 or 15 years, due to other natural climate cycles which are masking the warming, so the world won't see in their own eyes, any more alarming climate change that people can point to as a matter of urgency (only in 30 years will the underlying energy stored in the system manifest itself) so for the next 15 years the science can no longer visibly and publically support your case for world cooperation. So what do you do? Remember, it isn't deniers saying that there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years, it is the best climate scientists themselves, the ones who have been at the forefront of the whole endeavour.

So how do you use climate change to convince people to not be selfish, especially when they obviously don't care that much about what happens to Bangladeshis anyway! I mean, if CC was an issue worth backing for changing people's hearts and minds, it would have worked by now. How many Earth Summits have we had? How much end productive action? Instead of productive action we have had several failed world agreements. So, obviously, to reduce selfishness, CC hasn't worked. Why continue to back that strategy? Far too often we rely on "outcomes" for our moral judgements, and the "outcome" of flooding Bangladeshis was supposed to make people take the right moral decision. But guess what, as we have seen even when it was already too late to avert the damage to come that is already stored in the pipeline of the global climate system, politicians still can't organise a pissup in a brewery. The core principle for the world is this: every human is a citizen of the world. So we all share the good and bad, we all share the work and the opportunities. We need a global system, not the occasional patronising global summit of rich countries offering handouts to a few miserable bastards, so we can continue to treat them as "other" becase we eased our conscience by making some concession. The principle of the system needs to work as a whole. Now, how do we get to that?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

One little correction

Posted April 16th, 2011 by Jonathan Cobb in response to the principle

For one thing, the earth has warmed in the last 15 years. It's surface temperatures that have had lower variability over that time, but atmospheric temperatures continue to rise(source). If, for some strange reason this were to stop, then great! Global warming would no longer be an issue. I don't need global warming to be true. I'd prefer that it wasn't. But the science behind it is overwhelming. It's simply not something we can afford to risk.

And I would agree that we need to work on messaging, but the solution cannot be to obscure the issue, as Zimmerman has done. Obviously one should be conservative in one's conclusions, as the IPCC has been, as have many other climate scientists. Many indicators have surpassed what climate scientists have predicted.

I also found it ludicrous how Zimmerman put down the ambitious carbon reduction plans that certain localities and governments have put forward, because I happen to live in a popular, growing city that has reduced its carbon footprint to 1990 levels. So it can be done, if there is a willingness for it. What breaks down that willingness is when people like Zimmerman obscure the data and make the denialist position seem plausible. America is virtually alone in the developed world as a haven for denialism, which wouldn't be so bad if we weren't one of the biggest global contributors to climate change. In fact, I'd say we don't need a global agreement on climate change. If America and China could just come to a bilateral agreement for reducing emissions, that would solve most of the problem right there.

Of course, building consensus is hard, and you have to approach it from every angle you can. I'm a big fan of the work that Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute are doing in consulting with business firms to become more energy efficient. If he's right(and there's enough Fortune 500 companies seeking his assistance to suggest he is), then combating climate change will prove to be profitable rather than expensive. I think this is fine, but there are definitely things government can do to help, such as having a feebate on vehicles to promote fuel efficiency. Even things like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade might not be necessary if we simply roll back the subsidies for fossil fuels.

But I digress. Whatever we need in terms of messaging, the one thing I'm pretty sure we don't need is muddling the issue by treating denialist myths on equal ground with real science.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

dilbert -- data and/or message?

Posted April 17th, 2011 by stefano in response to One little correction

To me it is hard to call it "overwhelming" when stepping a bit closer to the glass. I'm looking at this clarification from that website and if it were another subject I'd feel it was a case of Dilbertesque legalese weasel wording: we are very confident that it is really real and happening, it is really happening, just not in a way we can measure with confidence. Eh, what?

Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995

'Phil Jones said that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.' (Daily Mail)

What the science says...

When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

There seems to be a huge disconnect between those who think that the main driver should be the data, versus the people who think the main driver is the message.

So on the one hand you have the "data" people, and they worry that the evidence doesn't support the claims being communicated to the public (perhaps the model was a best guess of the risks 20 years ago, but since then they got more data in, and have had more time to ponder this stuff).

On the other you have the "on message" people, who think that the objective data side of it is simply already beyond question, and now it is just a matter of how best to educate everyone.

I totally accept that there's two different quadrants involved here -- the UR objective method of gathering data, and the LL issue of how to instil values in culture for human sustainability.

And maybe some people are more drawn to UR methodologies, and some are more interested in LL methodologies. Some people worry about stuff, and some people worry about values.

It is usually pretty obvious who's who after reading for a few minutes -- the LL people just refer to the UR as "settled" and then spend the rest of the time talking about LL culture (the messages, the means of communication, the politics, the education, the people who send out the wrong signals, and are thus irresponsible, etc.)

I have to say I'm someone who worries more about UR, so for me people need to "enter the gate" by showing a lot of respect for UR science. If someone has a claim, they'd better be ready to back it up. And that means, trying to test it to death. It doesn't mean paying lip service to objectivity by claiming "it is settled" -- that's just all sorts of trouble with confirmation biases and all sorts of other biases.

I think that for the LL people, the problem they need to focus on is quite seriously, how to educate people into a culture of values where global compassion can grow, without needing to use use the "science is settled" message.

Imagine you're the lead creative director for the Kellogg's breakfast foods campaigns, and this year your brief changes -- it turns out that the medical research is starting to link high carbohydrate consumption with type II diabetes, so you're now no longer able to claim that the science says unequivocally that the cereals are "very healthy." Well you still need to do a campaign, and just because the science changed a bit, as it tends to do because health is complex, you still need to create messages for promoting the culture of these products. Just to give you a sense of how big the swings in official opinion can be, and I wasn't around at the time, but I gather that they used to advertise that, "more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." back when the American Medical Association said that they were good for you. That would be like the IPCC saying that tar sands mining is the cure for global warming. But it was official. Call it bureaucracy, or whatever. The point is, getting proof is hard in the UR so why pin your message for a better culture to UR claims?

It is like the guy who wouldn't believe in Ken's altered states until he saw the squiggles change on the EEG machine. Well, waiting for people to become more caring on account of man made global warming is basically asking everyone to read up on the archaic nuances of statistical techniques in climatology before they will "see the light" about the need for action.

You've tied your whole campaign to a techy specialist subject at a time when few people even do basic science in school. Why?

The real work you're trying to do isn't even in the UR quadrant.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Upper-Right

Posted April 17th, 2011 by Jonathan Cobb in response to dilbert -- data and/or message?

I'm confused. Why are you dismissing the upper-right quadrant here? The upper-right quadrant claims are precisely what is at issue here. Either anthropogenic climate is real or is not. The evidence overwhelmingly(yes, I'll say it again) says that it is(and if the article you read seemed "Dilbertesque," perhaps you need a refresher course on statistics). That is what this is about. We can talk about creating a culture of compassion and all that wonderful stuff, but that's not what's at stake here. Now, I don't claim that it's "settled," insofar as scientific theory are never "settled." What we do have is a compelling case that we are endangering our own survival. The whole business about "waiting for people to become more caring" is irrelevant. This is a matter of our own future, and you don't have to be at a very high level of development to see that. Third world countries with much lower levels of development(both economically and consciously) are already very concerned about climate change, because it affects them.

And no, I'm not saying everyone has to understand the details of the science. I'm simply criticizing those like Zimmerman who obscure the issue by giving undue credence to discredited denialist claims. The message is important. And that message needs to be in sync with the data.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Your stuck

Posted April 17th, 2011 by Brian OConnell in response to Upper-Right

You are holding on to a view that is unable to take a wider more significant view. A closed system in a vicious circle. How well do you think you can handle scientific axioms? Seeing that you find it so easy to say that Michael is not qualified. Which, "qualified" is related to a specialty which is apart of the problem. What level of science do you think you can handle? Remember that most of us in an integral ecological stance were on the side of environmentalism, then started to notice many issues that did not hold up in the light of reason. I was already in your shoes (so to say)ten years ago. There are questions that expose the current climate science as way to simplistic and naive. I want to see if you can go further then the "evidence is overwhelming" and start to question the axioms they have in the theory. Moving from an amber stance to an orange one.

So far it does not look good. Since your going around and around.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Light of Reason?

Posted April 17th, 2011 by Jonathan Cobb in response to Your stuck

I'm sorry, Brian, but after all the conspiratorial nonsense you've posted on this site, I have a lot of trouble taking you seriously. I've hardly seen a single idea from you that isn't wrapped in tinfoil. I believe in climate change because I have investigated the evidence. I could go over all the evidence, but frankly that's not my job, and I wouldn't expect someone who believes all that Truther/Illuminati/NWO claptrap to understand science anyway(then again, I used to be a Truther before I investigated the evidence). I know this sounds dismissive, and honestly it is, because if one wants to avoid being sucked into endless arguments that go nowhere, one must realize who is worth arguing with and who isn't. Goodbye, Brian. I'm done with you.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

...

Posted April 17th, 2011 by stefano in response to Upper-Right

Well what is the implication here in saying "not statistically significant" ?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Simple

Posted April 17th, 2011 by Jonathan Cobb in response to ...

It means that to find statistical significance, you have to look at a bigger timescale, but the rate of increase has not changed. The "noise" he refers to is the fact that there are year-to-year variations in climate that, if you looked at too short a timescale, you couldn't distinguish the larger trend from that noise. Furthermore, did you bother to read further down? Jones was only talking about surface temperatures. Atmospheric warming has been much more dramatic, and oceanic warming is off the charts.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

15... 30...

Posted April 18th, 2011 by stefano in response to Simple

It means that to find statistical significance, you have to look at a bigger timescale, but the rate of increase has not changed.

I understood it to mean that, if it isn't statistically significant, then you shouldn't conclude anything. You shouldn't try to use it.

Say for example I live in USA and am curious about who will win the next election. So I do a survey and find that 4 out of 5 people will vote for Obama. Great. But then a statistician comes over and looks at how I did the survey. They run the numbers and find that my survey has no statistical significance. Ie. I should NOT rely on it. I should not conclude anything from my survey. (And as it happens, all my survey consisted of was me asking 20 people I know who all have similar socio-economic backgrounds.)

So "no statistically significant warming for 15 years" means that, looking at your data, you can't conclude that there has been warming. It means that even if the little dots on the graph are going up, in reality there could even have been cooling. You can't conclude with scientific confidence that there HAS been warming.

This is why, as I understand it, I find the statement from that site Dilbertesque. They say:

When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. [emphasis mine]

So this is where we ask, but how do you know there is a warming trend? For real?

The stats say you should have no confidence and yet you go tell the public, "oh but there is a warming trend!"

How do you know? The stats say that in reality it could even have been cooling in that period.

Now I want to mention the other angle you pointed to. Let's say that 15 years is too short a period anyway and it just isn't relevant to talk about 15 years. Well that's interesting because in climate, climate is the long term average of weather, and, "the classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization." (wikipedia)

So, look at the situation. The oceans are not heating up as much at the moment as expected. The atmosphere is not heating as much as expected. And this is before we even get into attribution to man's activities. But that's all OK because in climate, we're only interested in 30 year periods minimum. So like, call us in another 15 years and we'll talk.

Returning to the LL quad, how are you going to talk to people about "the reality" of dangerous warming when you're not going to see that predicted warming play out for at least another 15 years?

Because in the meantime, even if it does warm dramatically in a couple of years, those who disagree can just say, "that's just a short term blip of natural variability" just like you're saying, this period is too short to conclude that warming has stopped.

See, how can I put this, I've already been 'round the houses' with these sorts of discussions, and skeptics can always say it is a poorly understood chaotic system, and that point is simple enough that the man in the street can get it and make it their own opinion. You're trying to see a signal in the noise and "the reality" is that you're never quite sure if it is signal or noise, so to increase confidence you have to wait longer. IPCC made its first report in what, 1990? That's over 20 years ago. And in 15 of those there's been no dramatic increase in warming and if anything the oceans, the 500 pound gorilla on the block, are "hiding" the warming, which means, if the scientists can't find it, how is the man in the street going to find it? How much longer do we have to wait before the man in the street can see the reality catching up with the theory? And care enough about it to go and vote about it?

This is why I'm warning against hitching your message in the LL, to "objective reality" in the UR -- it just isn't easy to figure out clearly what that objective reality really is. It turns into a really long exercise of citing paper after paper and expert after expert (there's always experts on both sides) and the man in the street isn't even qualified to understand one of those papers, let alone that a 95% confidence means that 1 in 20 of those papers is probably just wrong anyway. And by the time you get into lecturing people that they need to go take a stats class, a generation of voters have come and gone. I mean, 30 years, how many political elections is that?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted April 18th, 2011 by admin in response to 15... 30...

This comment has been deleted by the author.

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Collapse to green

Posted April 16th, 2011 by Steve Redmond

First, thank you for posting on this interesting topic. I have to take issue with your statement here just because I see it so differently and am wondering how others see it. You said:

I agree with ‘we take all these perspectives into account’, but where I part from you is your statement about treating all perspectives as equal. Not at all, and to the contrary, I believe he has made several value judgments to come to his conclusions. You may not agree with those judgments but I don’t think he has treated them equal. I think your argument would carry more weight if you debated some of the value judgments and where you disagree (and why).

One example, he has made the value judgment stating third world countries would not rank CC as a major priority. He stated that most are just in survival mode keeping their heads down trying to get through the day. You find it laughable and use the Bangladesh example (which was a good one by the way). However I still agree with him and think he is drawing on the research done about values and stages of development. CC doesn’t really come into awareness until Orange-Green stages to use spiral dynamic terms. What percent of the Bangladesh population is at these stages? 10-20%? Not to say that they wouldn’t 100% care once sea levels rose to a point of threat. I’m just saying that most are not thinking about it right now. They probably would rank better economic conditions far above CC.

Of course, I am talking without data and speculating but I am trying to illustrate that he is, in fact, making value judgments which is a key difference between integral and green and your statement about treating all as equal just seemed off. What do others think?

By the way, I think this goes without saying in this forum. But, I hope this is taken in the spirit of learning. It is not a personal attack at all.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

How

Posted April 16th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Collapse to green

might one develop both simultaneously?

Like, surviving and delightedly building and living a joyous future without fear of being consumed by the ocean?

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

blue

Posted April 17th, 2011 by stefano in response to Collapse to green

Yes green altitude would not make clear judgements about priorities.

Another aspect, maybe I can add this here, is that the CC message seems to often collapse to blue. Image wise, look at Al Gore's 20 feet floods in An Inconvenient Truth. The IPCC actually estimates about 2 feet in a century. So why do we go from 2 feet to 20 feet, with a realistic visual of Manhattan underwater? I think intuitively because it looks Biblical. It is CC collapsing to blue/amber.

The weirdness is that scientifically 20 feet rise cannot be ruled out because of uncertainty -- probably won't happen but it might -- and consequently that uncertainty is used to push the most emotive and mythically powerful image which is normally evocative of blue, which is the altitude of simple truths, right and wrong, ie. unquestioning certainty.

Why green, which so often values diversity of opinion, questioning, relativity of truths in shifting contexts, collapses to blue for meaning making in CC, is a real head scratcher.

LIkewise the talk about democracy being inadequate to deal with CC and the praising of Chinese authoritarianism -- again, why the collapse back to pre-democratic authoritarian blue?

Green spent 50 years deconstructing blue -- now they're recreating it??

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

CO2

Posted April 16th, 2011 by Brian OConnell

I guess you believe that CO2 is the driver of climate change? Have you seen other theories that do not have CO2 as the main driver? Are you willing to take other perspectives? Or do you just believe the overwhelming evidence?

Your post shows the narrow view that Ken and Michael where talking about. "The science is settled!" why play games with the truth. We need to do something or the world will be in great risk.

Or is climate change a subset of a more significant issue of perspectives. Orange and green having their own issues with power and values blurring their perspective such that the myth of the given is underlying it and ignoring the UL and LL influence in their view.

So my recommendation is to study science in general more, so that the methods the scientist are using, do not seem so cock sure. And would help show how much unknown there is in science in general and how basic our underlying assumptions are. ( Supporting article Here).

Not to obfuscate the issue, of pollution, and environmentalism. I do believe there is climate change, just that CO2 has practically nothing to do with it. Which changes our policies dramatically. And makes it not a climate change issue but an Energy issue. Just what Michael was saying. And I think everyone can agree on the energy issue but climate change is based on statements that have not been validated by observation( No matter how many scientists and boards like the public to think they have, but that would take more research on your part) Because scientists are specialists and that is what can make them blind. Like the article goes through and Integral shows. We need integration and just believing in LR statements by scientists and not seeing how we are always in perspectives that have unknowns, value biases, and shadows. Not taking this into account would be not using Integral perspectives.

Which has me wondering about how much of the IOS you have actually embodied.

Conspiracy theories are the shadow of the LR and LL. But I guess you have not seen the conspiracies in history yet. Just believing the myths made for you. Have you studied CC enough to have seen how Maurice Strong had a influence in starting it politically. Then the science was funded from politics first. But I am repeating what Michael has said.

If this subject is so important to you, maybe you can study it more such that you have more authority than " The scientist have a consensus!" Really? No doubt, really. Sounds more like a religion to me than science.

What about the emotions of your post. Upset that Michael was not sharing in your view. A view they addressed. But I am a terrible mirror. Maybe a deeper study of science can do it on this subject.

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Into Whose

Posted April 18th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal

Touch ?

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The Reason Against Multiplying

Posted April 18th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal

There s already enough.

Remember the children

w h e n w e ' v e g o n e

h o m e

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Bigotry and fairness

Posted April 18th, 2011 by stefano

I think discussions stick on how we see the people who know that climate change is a reality and the science is overwhelming, and the other people who don't see it this way and are called deniers. The deniers are wrong because they are like racists, simply unable to see the wider truth of justice and fairness for all. Racists are just racists. But I have to say, it is a hard and heavy thing to do, this labelling of the other as mentally or developmentally defective. If you have a look at the Watts Up With That website, and read through the comments, many people are scientists, engineers, and specialists from various fields.

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Integral Obfuscation

[Comment Deleted]

Less denialism

How

at least I'm always right. (:

risk is not simple

what is

global warming

the principle

One little correction

dilbert -- data and/or message?

Upper-Right

Your stuck

Light of Reason?

Ok

this is

...

Simple

15... 30...

[Comment Deleted]

and

Collapse to green

How

blue

Wait, but

CO2

Into Whose

The Reason Against Multiplying

Bigotry and fairness

what