This is topic Indeed, don't ask for proof... in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=1;t=004762

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Part of me hates to come back to this. I just wrote about agreeing with one of Card's essays, and my fuzzy side is saying "can't we all just get along?"


I can accept that someone believes global climate change is being misrepresented. It's the notion that there's a massive intellectual conspiracy based on a small number of flawed reports (and that these wrongheaded people are wielding political correctness to force this view down the masses' throats) that rings ludicrous in the extreme.

Let's talk about double standards.

In five minutes on Google, searching for "climate change proof", you can find, on the first page:

Which makes reference to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, American Association for the Advancement of Science... But not the hated, and apparently unilaterally disproven, IPCC.

Also, this:

Again, that's just what's available on the first page of search results.

Now, there certainly is some disagreement among scientists, as there inevitably will be when you get a group of devoted people together who are doing experiments and getting an array of results. But what I've seen suggests not remotely that there's some loudmouthed majority toeing a party line and a small band of freedom-fighting dissenters battling to get the truth through the barriers of political correctness. What I've read suggests, instead, that most reputable scientists may disagree with portions of reports like those of the IPCC and the "Hockey Stick" chart- but only because they disagree with the means used to achieve those results, or feel the degrees of change are exaggerated one way or another. They still believe that humans are responsible for the changes that are being witnessed.

Now, about that double standard.

One is free to believe whatever one chooses. But if one is going to editorialize and condemn, a common standard would be nice.

A time ago, we were told about those intellectual elite liberals and a particularly striking example of their contempt for all that is good and decent in society: the egging of the hearse of a soldier who died in Iraq, for which students may have received college credit.

A shocking and provocative statement like that surely wouldn't be made without some corroborating proof, yes? Since we prize proof so highly, we wouldn't take a single piece of hearsay as establishing fact, and thousands of scientists who dedicate their lives to study as trivial?

Google: "egg hearse soldier"

Ten pages. Two references to such an event: both refer to the original Ornery article as their source.

Also a pitiful story about a soldier's coffin returning via standard airline luggage and a bit about Fox News' Hannity misattributing a similar protest to liberals, when it was in fact precipitated by Fred Phelps and his followers.

And many references to Easter Eggs, of both the video game and holiday variety.

...Maybe I'm being too broad? "eggs hearse soldier Iraq"...

Searched two pages. Same circular references.

I also, when the original article came out, sent a link to the fine folks at the Urban Legends web page, asking if they could verify or dispute the story. Thus far, I've heard nothing.

Surely such a story would warrant at least a page five in the hometown newspaper? Heck, in the current climate, wouldn't such news be trumpeted by the New York Post and Fox News?

We are allowed to believe what we choose, and undoubtedly we have our biases. But when those biases are made abundantly clear in what we'll accept as "proof" for believing what we want to believe...

Well, what can I say. I could say something snarky, and be rightfully ignored, or I could urgently suggest that the appearance of integrity is at stake, and be equally ignored.

If one aspires to journalism, to bringing the great truths to those whose minds and ears are still open, then perhaps some consideration is in order.

If one only wants to vent... I suppose I'm hardly one to throw stones, but why in God's name should anyone listen?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Quite a sterling post there...Sterling.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
I'm so glad they found proof. Both links were intreasting.

Sadly I'm not that good with the internet and haven't been able to find the data collected or how the models worked for the first artical....I'd like to know how they got those results. Guess I'll have to wait for it to be published " in a major peer-reviewed journal" Unless someone smarter then me can find the information and link it.

Second one was intreasting too, I'm assumming the satellite was launched, I'd also like to find the data collected since then and look at it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't take Card's essay seriously, he's trying to debase all of global warming science by discrediting a charicature of a global warming "expert." There's a name for that type of argument, and it's the foundation of his entire essay.

Furthermore, he says things that are blatently untrue. I don't think he understands the business angle of a renewable energy economy at all, otherwise he wouldn't say that there is virtually zero profit to be made from it.

The man just needs to check his sources better, or better yet, come up with good sources to begin with.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Harsh all sides around. Still, I agree with the foundation of what Card was saying. Most people into "Global Warming" are severely misinformed. Besides that, until it actually becomes a crisis... who cares? You'll never actually get enough people to buy into it on shakey ground to make a "real difference".
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Most people into "Global Warming" are severely misinformed."

Really? On what points?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Most of them don't really understand what causes it, and what the difference is between man made causes and natural causes. Plus, almost no one cares to take into account the fact that we're PART of a living planet. Does anyone else wonder if we have any sort of Piggie Genetics???
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I think the opponents of Global Warming are either just as uninformed or greatly less informed than the proponents of same.

The big problem with SOLVING global warming is that the benefits of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels go far, far, far, far, far beyond just environmental savings. We could make a bundle off it, bolster our economy, make ourselves militarily and diplomatically stronger, and increase the nation's health to boot. I have no idea why Card would try and batter GW solutions when he clearly doesn't understand their execution or benefits.

Renewable energy independence is one of the greatest issues facing America right now, and global warming is the least most immediate concern of a half dozen reasons I can think of off the top of my head on why that is so.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hrm. If you think people who say gw is happening are misinformed on those grounds, what must you think of people who say that people have no effect on the earth's climate...
Posted by Matek (Member # 9065) on :
"Besides that, until it actually becomes a crisis... who cares?"

I don't think you understand....if it acually becomes a "crisis" it'll be far to late to acually do anything about it. The track we're on right now is already damaging our home beyond repair, and if people continue to ignore it, we lose. Game over.

Mother Nature 1
Humanity 0

It's a basic rule of nature: when a species becomes too populous, nature (usually in the form of another species) corrects the balance. We've lived on this planet for a few million years, yet it is only in the last few thousand that we have been caring less about our environment, and more about ourselves.
We "conquered" the planet, as if the earth was our enemy to be subdued.
Now the only thing that can get us out of this mess of civilization, is the same thing that got us into it in the first place: our brain.

[ May 16, 2007, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Matek ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We've lived on this planet for a few million years, yet it is only in the last few thousand that we have been caring less about our environment, and more about ourselves.
We cared about our environment in pre-history? When?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well . . . according to environementalists, from the very start. Of course, anyone who has done any historical studies of civilization and migration know this isn't at all true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hrm. My wife and I are both environmentalists, and we don't make that claim.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Usually what I read is that humanity has consistently replaced sustainable practices by attempting to maximize output in agricultural or other fields.

This isn't exactly the same as saying that previous methods were more environmentally friendly by design, but I guess I could see that happening occasionally.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I think the difference between then and now is that our ability to harm the earth way back in the day was much much less than it is now.

If the Industrial Revolution had happened during the height of the Roman Empire, the conversation we're having right now would have already been decided a thousand years ago, and considering it took us a thousand years to get to the philosophical and metaphorical point we're currently at, I don't think we would have liked the result.

And much before that, we didn't even have societies, we had nomadic hunter gatherer groups who didn't even farm, let alone exhaust the land and pollute, making it a moot point.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Humanity was never enivornmentally friendly. However, industry and the culture of consumption causes people to squander earth's resources of the creation of trinkets.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
The environment's stability is based on balance. Humanity is fully environmentally friendly as long as what they consume is balanced by what they produce and how they complete food chains and suppress population booms of other species. In this way, humans were environmentally friendly from the prehistoric times.

Though it is very likely that humans worshiped aspects of nature a million years ago, humans had to take from the environment, and knowing that there was so much before them, hey, who needs to be conservative? Get those mammoths every chance you have!

Humans are still having a similar attitude, in regard to labor, convenience, food, and energy. What has really changed is our increased dependence on nature and our increased population. That sets the environment out of balance when one species, united to consume the resources they need, surpass all other species drastically and have no way to be suppressed.

This is where the environment problems come from.

Humanity, however, does have a bit of foresight. That is why environmentalists are warning that we are wasting too many of the Earth's resources and are putting into the Earth aggravating material that disadvantages all but humanity further, which makes the balance tip even more.

The reason Earth didn't pull an Alderaan on us is because, while we take in voraciously unnatural amounts of stuff, which is driving competition too fierce for many species, what we're putting back into the Earth to further mess up the climate are passive leftovers.

We're polluting with soda cans and candy wrappers passively, and these leftovers are a result of what we didn't need and therefore didn't keep. If humanity were TRYING to hurt the environment, they would have succeeded thousands of years ago. Humans naturally care about their sources for their needs, and it is only our disregard for what we don't need that is landing the world in trouble. That, and the booming population.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And much before that, we didn't even have societies, we had nomadic hunter gatherer groups who didn't even farm, let alone exhaust the land and pollute, making it a moot point.

Hunter-gatherers can still do enormous amounts of damage to an ecology, it just takes them a little longer. In some cases, not that much longer. Consider the megafauna in North America: 12000 BCE, humans enter Alaska. 11000 BCE, no more megafauna.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
I dont see why our society has become so crazed with the great, easy, technological, quick fix business. The magic pill that will provide easy wieght loss lol It seems everyone is searching for a great advancement that will solve our problems when really all we need to do is make tiny adjustments to our everyday lives and we could prolong our current resources considerably.

NOTE: I apologize in advance for the numerous spelling errors but im coming off a 12 hour shift and dont feel like editing anymore.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :

Just thought maybe OSC would like a handy link that he can use to fact check any future articles about climate change.

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2