Left vs. Right on Science & Honesty

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Sub, here’s a link to the study you cite. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 0612463317

Could you address these questions:

Who was surveyed?

Why did the authors choose to survey that group?

How was the survey conducted?

What was the return rate?

What was the sample reliability?

Why did you claim this survey represents the majority of scientist’s opinions on climate change?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm seriously thinking about going vegetarian, or at least, cutting out beef and... (*sniff*) pork. I don't eat much of either now, but I still enjoy it occasionally. Apparently, you can do more for emissions by not eating beef than by getting a hybrid, because of all the cow farts and the agriculture that goes into keeping and feeding cattle (I haven't verified that).

My daughter wants me to (she's been meatless for a while now), and she's pretty pissed off at adults and especially science deniers (GOP) after the IPCC report. I can't really blame her, and I guess I feel like my generation owes hers.

Anyway, it's not like I'd die without meat. The planet seems more important.

You should do it. Even if you aren't 100% successful, being at an 80 or 90% solution is far, far better than taking no action. You can incorporate all sorts of things into a diet in lieu of meat, and it's delicious. A lot of people think being a vegetarian is all about eating salads, but that's way, way off. There are tons of great recipes, ethnic foods, and alternate ways to approach dishes that being a vegetarian is pretty easy.

And. When you do occasionally have that steak or chicken wing you'll know that you've reduced your meat consumption to the point of being ethical.

- Doc

[_Water Dog]

Instead of going vegetarian you could come to Texas and lend a hand with our hog problem. Then you'd be reducing your carbon footprint and helping local farmers out at the same time. Without having to quit meat.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sub, I think your second example is actually evidence of politicization by the right. Absent politicization, the party of the person speaking shouldn’t matter. But if conservatives will accept climate science only from conservative politicians, isn’t that because the right politicized the issue in the first place. As for the history of the right’s politicization of climate science, I’d be happy to walk you through that. But I really don’t think a guide is necessary.

[_Some Schmo]

You can incorporate all sorts of things into a diet in lieu of meat, and it's delicious. A lot of people think being a vegetarian is all about eating salads, but that's way, way off. There are tons of great recipes, ethnic foods, and alternate ways to approach dishes that being a vegetarian is pretty easy.

My wife made a couple of lasagnas, one for us that had beef and one for my daughter that had this vegetarian beef-like stuff we buy. I accidentally had a slice of her left-overs and had no idea it wasn't ground beef (course, my wife makes a killer lasagna). I didn't know I'd done it until my wife gave me crap for eating what she made for our daughter (I felt awful about it, actually).

And I love salads, so that would concern me the least about it (although I know what you're saying). Salads are among my favorite dishes.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, your daughter is going to love seeing you get on board. Just make sure if you go vegetarian you buy a Prius. Preferably one with a 'coexist' or 'resist' window sticker.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Hi Sub, here’s a link to the study you cite. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 0612463317

Could you address these questions:

Who was surveyed?

You can’t expect subs to actually read his own links. ; )

From the study -

...we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

It’s a touch ironic that a poster firmly identifying as ‘on the right’ would post this, in a ‘Science and Honesty’ thread, as a defense that the overall scientific community was reaching these conclusions, as opposed to a specific group within it whose livelihood is at stake in the debate.

[_Morley]

It’s a touch ironic that a poster firmly identifying as ‘on the right’ would post this, in a ‘Science and Honesty’ thread, as a defense that the overall scientific community was reaching these conclusions, as opposed to a specific group within it whose livelihood is at stake in the debate.

Indeed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sub isn’t the first denier that I’ve caught trying to do the exact same thing with the exact same study. I started chuckling as soon as he cited it.

This is all that the global warming deniers have; lying, misleading and dissembling. They demand crucifixition if there is an error in a published paper, but they just tell lie after lie after lie. They don’t care, cuz they actually don’t give a crap about science.

[_Res Ipsa]

I mean, look at WD’s howler on the IPCC thread. He quotes an abstract, but omits the critical last sentence. He then puts the second to last sentence in boldface as if it were the final conclusion.

Honesty, thy name ain’t Water Dog.