1 of 2
1
Robert Price, co-host of POI and global warming skeptic
Posted: 26 September 2010 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-09-26

I came across this from his Bible Geek podcast.

1/5/2010 15:55

I’m tellin’ ya, it’s just convincing, isn’t it, about global warming when you’re sitting here in the sunny south with it being below thirty.

When a listener challenged him about this comment in a subsequent podcast, he said it was just a “smartass crack” and acknowledged the obvious fallacy in suggesting that a single day’s temperature is indicative of anything. He goes on to say that he’s not a “denier” of global warming, he’s just “very doubtful about it.” My question is, what is the difference? The above comment conveys the same message in either case.

1/16/2010 23:27

I am just suspicious of it [global warming], which is all I claim. I’m not a global warming denier. It just seems to me suspicious partly because we used to hear about global cooling and the dawning of a new ice ace, and that was put to ideological use, as was the nuclear nuclear winter hoax.

Also the fact there’s been this disclosure of these emails that show these experts were doctoring the evidence, suppressing other people’s views…this sounds to me like the phony science slight of hand characteristic of the creationists…

And certainly though one can point to capitalists and those who like free enterprise and say they might have a bias against it [global warming], no one can deny there is an ideological—indeed cultic—motivation for people to favor the global warming doctrine…

I am in no way convinced that global warming deserves that status [of the theory of evolution] or that the debate is over, as people say to try to choke it off….

I am very doubtful about it, but again I will not deny it since I don’t have enough of the facts, but I doubt that anyone does.  I cannot believe there’s been sufficient data for long enough to be able to predict these big changes.

Wha? Some right-wing misinformation in there. See the graphs at the bottom of http://www.climate.gov

Robert Price is certainly brilliant regarding the Bible and other topics, but he seems to possess some residual evidence-free ideological leanings from his evangelical days. His podcasts are lightly sprinkled with other right-wing talking points as well (Obama is a socialist, etc).

Perhaps we can treat this as an opportunity? What if the co-host of Point of Inquiry conducted an inquiry? Will the evidence change his mind? This could be an instructive case study in how denialism can operate even in someone hired by CFI.

Would someone ask Dr. Price about this?

podcast: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bible-geek-show/id360861303
ustream: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3773367 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4020523

[ Edited: 26 September 2010 11:02 AM by Tal Neander ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Well that’s disappointing ...

Do you have links to anything?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
dougsmith - 26 September 2010 09:45 AM

Well that’s disappointing ...

Disappointing?  It is outrageous! !
Especially, considering the kindergarden arguments Price mentioned.

Global Cooling? That classic AGHoaxer’s strawman.  Anyone who can repeat that story with a straight face has obvious not looked into those couple reports——It is a travesty to claim scientific knowledge based on a few sensationalistic media reports that misrepresented the science papers they were reporting on!

Nuclear winter?  Is Price a member of or believer in the science spin that came/cums out of the Marshall Institute. And what does the theorizing about the possible consequences of lobbing Nuclear bombs at each other have to do with AGW?

“Also the fact there’s been this disclosure of these emails that show these experts were doctoring the evidence.” 

Price this is disgusting, have you read any of the emails, or are you just repeating what you read in the blogosphere? 
Where are these incriminating quotes - let’s hear them! 
Is Price aware (does he even care) of the various investigations confirming that the stolen emails, show no collusion to doctor or control science… all they show is that scientists are humans too, have feeling and occasionally get pissed at all the mud that is being slung in their direction!

I am in no way convinced that global warming deserves that status [of the theory of evolution] or that the debate is over, as people say to try to choke it off….

And what do you know that puts you in a position other than merely a dilettante repeating what someone else told you?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Price I dare you read the post {#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination - then can we discuss what voracity folks ought to possess in this argument.  Because, according to your above standard - you and I are on equal footing when it comes to making pronouncements about the Bible - never mind the fact that you’ve studied it for a life time and I’ve just dabbled in it and tend to be revolted by it!
~~~~~~~~~~~

Tal Neander - 26 September 2010 07:42 AM

Perhaps we can treat this as an opportunity? What if the co-host of Point of Inquiry conducted an inquiry? Will the evidence change his mind? This could be an instructive case study in how denialism can operate even in someone hired by CFI.
Would someone ask Dr. Price about this?

dougsmith - 26 September 2010 09:45 AM

Do you have links to anything?

Tal Neander - 26 September 2010 07:42 AM

Would someone ask Dr. Price about this?

Please someone do ask Mr. Price about this - some of us would like to hear more than the usual silence that comes from people who utter totally unsupportable - discredited - crap to the public about AGW… although I’m not holding my breath for his thoughtful reply.

Will Price surprise us with an informative reply?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-09-26

I added some links to original post. I just found it on ustream as well, though the ustream player seems pretty buggy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-09-26

I add that, otherwise, Robert Price is awesome and the Bible Geek is awesome. We all have our blind spots. I hope Dr. Price will notice one of his own.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Excuse me for a little hostility peaking through, but what can I say - I appreciate that the current (obvious) transitions in global climate patterns are a long term process, with the momentum of a flash flood - and all our willful avoidance has accomplished is add more water (mass) to the momentum behind these changes and they will have tough results that at the rate our illusions are pushing us, will turn the world of my kids and grand kids into a pure hell.  yes, i am pissed - I ask you folks to excuse me, but I will not apologize. Though I will do my best to remain civil.

Back when I was in high school we learned about the basics of these facts. We also learned that we knew very little* and that much study would be taken… and it was taken. We know much more today, maybe the images isn’t fully focused but it sure can be recognized to all who Don’t Refuse To Look At.

{But, basic physics IS basic physics and GHG dynamics are understood.

HOW MANY TIMES DO LIES NEED TO BE EXPOSED BEFORE WE HAVE PERMISSION TO TRASH THEM?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Price:  I am in no way convinced that global warming deserves that status [of the theory of evolution] or that the debate is over, as people say to try to choke it off….

Who do you want to hold the debate open for?

Don’t you appreciate the “debate” has been going on for over a century?

The “debate” became part of the pubic consciousness when I was in high school and I’m 55 now!

In the past couple decades the “debate” has been hijacked by a proven corporate financed agenda driven campaign who’s purpose was to thwart any reconsideration of our free wheeling free market system.{Click here for details}

The said same system who’s premise is to consume resources as fast as possible, while maximizing profits - these folks suffer from a frightening tunnel vision, somehow overlooking that all humanity is dependent on the health this planet… the only one we shall ever know!

As for “skeptics” campaigns lead by such scientific luminaries as Seitz, Singer, Gray, Lindzen, they have had their findings, claims and public opinions deconstructed time after time. Sure, they have made contributes through their work, but there is a point where the weight of evidence must be taken into account.

Furthermore, these folks are becoming more and more disingenuous in their claims.

So, Dr. Price who do you feel the “debate” should remain open to - and for what serious reasons - or valid arguments?
Or are the right wing media entertainment, profit obsessed, prianas valid participants at the big boy’s science table? Why?

P.S. I believe the debate we need is an actual court trial, examining the premise of the AGWHoaxers “debate points.
Fair and square, something that seems impossible to achieve through the public media”

Price:  I am very doubtful about it, but again I will not deny it since I don’t have enough of the facts

Then, why in God’s name are you jumping on the Hoaxers Band Wagon?

[ Edited: 28 September 2010 09:37 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 02:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-05-29
citizenschallenge.pm - 26 September 2010 12:28 PM

Excuse me for a little hostility peaking through, but what can I say - I appreciate that the current (obvious) transitions in global climate patterns are a long term process, with the momentum of a flash flood - and all our willful avoidance has accomplished is add more water (mass) to the momentum behind these changes and they will have tough results that at the rate our illusions are pushing us, will turn the world of my kids and grand kids into a pure hell.  yes, i am pissed - I ask you folks to excuse me, but I will not apologize. Though I will do my best to remain civil.

Back when I was in high school we learned about the basics of these facts. We also learned that we knew very little* and that much study would be taken… and it was taken. We know much more today, maybe the images isn’t fully focused but it sure can be recognized to all who Don’t Refuse To Look At.

{But, basic physics IS basic physics and GHG dynamics are understood.

HOW MANY TIMES DO LIES NEED TO BE EXPOSED BEFORE WE HAVE PERMISSION TO TRASH THEM?

Oh boy, well get out the torches and the pitchforks for Dr Price. How dare he question AGW and the sins the human race are committing against Mother Gaia?

Sir if you honestily believe that humans are causing global warming then how come you are using a PC that consumes power?  How come you continue to emit in your very breath hateful CO2 that pollutes the air?  For the love of the earth, man, kill yourself fast and maybe a polar bear will live another day!

No one should take human caused global warming seriously as long as the rabid advocates continue to live a modern, 21st industrial lifestyle while lecturing the rest of us on how we should live our lives in order to save the planet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-09-26
Old Hoplite - 26 September 2010 02:44 PM

No one should take human caused global warming seriously as long as the rabid advocates continue to live a modern, 21st industrial lifestyle while lecturing the rest of us on how we should live our lives in order to save the planet.

Here’s the data again: http://www.climate.gov. Look at the graphs at the bottom. Let us know what you don’t understand.

Your moral valuation of particular individuals has no relation to that data. Suppose that every person who accepted AGW had resolved to masturbate in public three times per day while dressed as a clown. That would not change the data represented by those graphs. (Neglecting, of course, the insignificant amount of additional CO2 produced while masturbating compared to mean energy consumption.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Old Hoplite - 26 September 2010 02:44 PM

Sir if you honestly believe that humans are causing global warming then how come you are using a PC that consumes power?  How come you continue to emit in your very breath hateful CO2 that pollutes the air?  For the love of the earth, man, kill yourself fast and maybe a polar bear will live another day!
No one should take human caused global warming seriously as long as the rabid advocates continue to live a modern, 21st industrial lifestyle while lecturing the rest of us on how we should live our lives in order to save the planet.

Ah, that’s just precious, here I was all self conscious about writing while steam was coming out from under my collar - but, your quick to shove me into a horror movie character and finish by suggesting I kill myself.

Another excellent example of how to approach resolving a serious discuss.
I noticed you had nothing to say about facts or presenting them honestly.

Old Hoplite - 26 September 2010 02:44 PM

. How dare he question AGW and the sins the human race are committing against Mother Gaia?

My question exactly - how dare Dr. Price peddle old dead horse non-arguments to question AGW, if he can’t come up with something substantial and verifiable he should keep out of what he apparently knows nothing about.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 08:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Dr. Price:  I cannot believe there’s been sufficient data for long enough to be able to predict these big changes.

I doubt we can hope for a direct thoughtful response from Dr. Price.

So, just for his personal information - before spewing more ignorance about our planet’s AGW situation, perhaps he should get acquainted with what the scientists actually know rather than uncritically passing along ‘urban myths’ as he did in his 1/16 podcast.
A good easy place to start is Skeptical Science - it is a gateway to real education on the topic.

And if he can’t muster the interest for at least that basic step - he should stick to the Bible, where anyone can say anything and it doesn’t matter anyways, so who cares… since it won’t make any difference to anything anyways.

Which can not be said for ignoring our AGW situation.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2010 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus click
November 10, 2008
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Global Warming: Man or Myth?
Climategate Coverage: Unfair & Unbalanced
Around November 19, 2009, stolen emails and computer code from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were uploaded to a publicly accessible Russian Web server.   The controversy went viral and was dubbed Climategate. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005200023
Inquiries found “no evidence” that scientists manipulated data
Melting Climategate: The Vindication of Scientist Michael Mann. Pete Altman. Posted February 3, 2010 in Solving Global Warming ...
switchboard.nrdc.org/.../melting_climategate_the_vindic.html

Sagan’s Brain: More Vindication for the “Climategate” Scientists
Jul 7, 2010 ... More Vindication for the “Climategate” Scientists. A British panel has just found that the so-called “climategate” scientists are not guilty ...
sagansbrain.blogspot.com/.../more-vindication-for-climategate.html

Al’s Journal : Climategate Scientists Vindicated
Climategate Scientists Vindicated July 15, 2010 : 11:17 AM. Over the past few weeks, the lies and distortions surrounding the Climategate scandal have ...
blog.algore.com/2010/07/climategate_scientists_vindica.html

Climategate and the Big Green Lie - Clive Crook - Politics - The ...
Jul 6, 2010 ... Full vindication: A Penn State scientist is cleared in ‘climategate’. Tuesday, July 06, 2010. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10187/1070613-192.stm -

AP: Independent report “largely vindicate[s]” scientists smeared ...
Jul 7, 2010 ... AP: Independent report “largely vindicate[s]” scientists smeared in “Climategate” attack. July 07, 2010 10:40 am ET by Eric Schroeck ...
mediamatters.org/blog/201007070017

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2010 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Ahh, the sound of silence…
AGW “skeptics” are soo predictable.

Big mouths, big assertions, lots of pot-shots, but can any of ‘em stand up and defend any of it coherently…

If the oh so predicable deafening silence is any indication, Guess Not!


Old Hoplite, Dr. Price where is the intellectual integrity in this pathetic “AGW skeptics” pattern???

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

.

[ Edited: 09 October 2010 09:46 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2010 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

Update October 9th

citizenschallenge.pm - 28 September 2010 09:16 AM

Ahh, the sound of silence…
AGW “skeptics” are soo predictable.
Big assertions, lots of pot-shots, but can any of ‘em stand up and defend any of it coherently?

If the oh so predicable deafening silence is any indication, Guess Not!

Old Hoplite, Dr. Price (et al.) where is the intellectual integrity in your “AGW skeptics” pattern of avoidance?]


I wonder if folks such as our elusive Dr. Price have the honest intellectual curiosity to actually examine their own so-called skepticism.
May I suggest taking a few moments to examine the following website.

  The Discovery of Global Warming July 2009

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change.
This Website created by Spencer Weart supplements his much shorter book, which tells the history of climate change research as a single story. On this Website you will find a more complete history in dozens of essays on separate topics, occasionally updated.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2010 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2010-10-06

I wont go off half cocked yet..

what sort of skeptics are you talking about? I am always open to robust conversation.  All it needs is a poor challenge and a skeptic can easily argue that a challenge is not worth believing.

I am not sure what the bible geek has gotten himself into. Because the comments and the context aren’t entirely clear.

It would be nice if Robert tried to understand the threat of anthropogenic wastes. I sort of hope he likes nuclear reactors as well.

I do like his thoroughly grounded opinion of how the language of mythology and the bible are the same. Its absolutely riveting.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1