Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 09:18:36 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The playbook that influenced how deniers view environmental science  (Read 1148 times)
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:09:46 AM
 #1

This document was not necessarily intended for you. It was intended as a playbook for Republicans, conservatives, Big Oil, and those think tanks such as The Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and so on. It's not science. It's how to engineer a political attack on science.

It is the Luntz memo: https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf
1481318316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481318316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481318316
Reply with quote  #2

1481318316
Report to moderator
1481318316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481318316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481318316
Reply with quote  #2

1481318316
Report to moderator
1481318316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481318316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481318316
Reply with quote  #2

1481318316
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481318316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481318316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481318316
Reply with quote  #2

1481318316
Report to moderator
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:16:43 AM
 #2

On page 137 (page 7 of the PDF document):

Quote
The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Emphasis is not mine, but verbatim from the document.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:18:49 AM
 #3

Page 138 is particularly illuminating.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:20:47 AM
 #4

The luntz institute needs to get a cleaner, safer scanner.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:28:10 AM
 #5

The luntz institute needs to get a cleaner, safer scanner.

Huh? Luntz is an individual, not an institute: Frank Luntz.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:31:06 AM
 #6

Oh, well I ran that through an OCR and it came out gibberish. I was just messing around. What year is this from?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:33:21 AM
 #7

Oh, well I ran that through an OCR and it came out gibberish. I was just messing around. What year is this from?

Your comments on the document are welcome, not the technology behind its delivery. 2002. Just click on the link.

bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
June 26, 2012, 05:44:52 AM
 #8

I did, I was trying to make it easier to quote. There is an admission that the "scientific debate is closing [against us]". So, in the author's opinion, they bet wrong and are trying to win an election/elections despite that.

Quote
Republicans can redefine the environmental debate and make inroads on what conventional wisdom calls a traditionally Democratic constituency

So they don't care either way. "Save the environment" or don't as long as it is in a way that gets them swing voters without losing their base. I think the word for this is sophistry.
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
June 27, 2012, 02:25:18 AM
 #9

http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-up-on-science-makes-grey-literature-official/

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
June 27, 2012, 03:09:53 AM
 #10

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

Thing is, truth is only part of it in politics. People cannot be bothered with complex reality if you expect a positive reaction. This paper is quite decent actually. Do you have more like this?

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 27, 2012, 03:34:27 AM
 #11

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

In what way is it true or 'quite decent', as you put it?
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
June 27, 2012, 10:56:04 AM
 #12

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

In what way is it true or 'quite decent', as you put it?

It shows how do experienced people carry out manipulation.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
June 27, 2012, 02:43:26 PM
 #13


I dunno, from my reading of the IPCC AR4 (which I never got around to really studying so it was more just skimming), it seemed pretty reasonable. I more have a problem with the way climate science is reported in the media. I doubt the commentator's on that site have studied it themselves. Instead they use heuristics like:

Quote
Funny how Canadian Donna LaFramboise discovered that 30% of the 18,500+ citations in the AR4 were not even close to being peer reviewed.

Honestly peer review doesn't mean that much, and even if all the references were peer reviewed you could just call it "crony reviewed" or whatever. So who cares.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 27, 2012, 03:13:48 PM
 #14


I dunno, from my reading of the IPCC AR4 (which I never got around to really studying so it was more just skimming), it seemed pretty reasonable. I more have a problem with the way climate science is reported in the media. I doubt the commentator's on that site have studied it themselves. Instead they use heuristics like:

Quote
Funny how Canadian Donna LaFramboise discovered that 30% of the 18,500+ citations in the AR4 were not even close to being peer reviewed.

Honestly peer review doesn't mean that much, and even if all the references were peer reviewed you could just call it "crony reviewed" or whatever. So who cares.

More to the point, junkscience has an agenda, and it is: deny climate change.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 27, 2012, 03:16:54 PM
 #15

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

In what way is it true or 'quite decent', as you put it?

It shows how do experienced people carry out manipulation.

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
June 27, 2012, 10:48:31 PM
 #16

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

Yep, that's the way it works. Not that there's solid evidence either way, so each side lobbies their cause using techniques as described in this paper. That's the way it is.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
June 27, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
 #17

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

Yep, that's the way it works. Not that there's solid evidence either way, so each side lobbies their cause using techniques as described in this paper. That's the way it is.

Partially correct in the general sense. Entirely incorrect in a more specific sense. In this particular discussion, specificity beats generality.

Thus, if I could summarize my reply in one word, it would be: Incorrect.
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
June 28, 2012, 08:13:32 AM
 #18

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

Yep, that's the way it works. Not that there's solid evidence either way, so each side lobbies their cause using techniques as described in this paper. That's the way it is.

Partially correct in the general sense. Entirely incorrect in a more specific sense. In this particular discussion, specificity beats generality.

Thus, if I could summarize my reply in one word, it would be: Incorrect.

Cool story bro.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!