Monday, February 26, 2007

Friends of Science

Ok, first thanks for all the comments to my last post. Really made me realize
1) That people actually read this damn thing
2) The Environment is an important issue to the people of today, and I'm helping to record it's discussion with this blog. That's pretty fucking cool.

It was suggested in the comments of my last post that the alternate side of the problem be explored, specifically a group called "the Friends of Science".

First of all, the groups goal :
To encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of Kyoto and the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject.

There is a bias towards a certain outcome from the very beginning. Even if they're findings were to the contrary, the group must hide or change many of it's facts if it is to continue it's existence.

The scientists involved have not written peer reviewed work on the subject of global warming in decades, the company is anonymously funded by the oil industry, they get unusual favours in parliament, they have the media's undivided attention despite being the only group of their kind in Canada.... well....

just read all this.

Then go do something really productive and visit:

**** Note **** - This is an edited version of the original post wherein I call the person who made the comments to task about listing this page/subject. Now he's a close/longtime personal friend and maybe calling him out on my blog was a little much. That said, he had an uncensored opportunity to reply to my post not only in the comments of this blog (which are still posted wth my replies) but he also has such opportunity to reply on his blog. I was open enough to state an opinon about the environment in my last post, he was open enough to share a counter-opinion, by commenting his views. I replied in kind with a post because I felt that my opposition to his views were important enough to state in a general way. My method of wording the text was in response to the frustration I felt that someone I so respected personally and intellectually was taking what I felt was an uneducated and media driven view. I apologize to Dave if he felt attacked, but I did want to make a point that we need to get above these types of Spin-Doctors if we want to get beyond this problem.

Now everyone, go turn off a light/appliance in your house and recycle everything you can that's in your pockets/wallets and purses.

Have a nice day.


David Roman said...


Anyways, I just want to say for the record, I was in no way supporting the views of the documentary I was linking too. However, that was just one of the websites I was directed to. From there, I found several websites that had no personal interest vested in their findings. Mostly University Proffessors and the like, just trying to be scientific, not biased in any direction. I found several different studies with several different findings. I've made my views based on both sides of the story, and am still not convinced there is a reason not to lessen Co2 emissions.

I'm not really mad or anything, but I do feel I am being singled out here for merely trying to get people researching further. Sheesh.

Danny said...

I wanna hear more of this new gang you are developed. Perhaps I could join. I swing a mean spade and have planted a few saplings in my day. WORD

Pilot said...

I'm not trying to single you out Dave, I just find it frustrating that people feel there is a NEED to play devils advocate on a subject that has been universally accepted among scientists since the 90's and is currently showing undeniable signs right now.

Just because a subject is in the limelight does not necessarily mean it needs to be opposed.

But more than that, I don't want people to be misled. Global Warming is one of the most important issues facing humanity and it's incredibly frustrating to see it debunked by scientists who won't subject themselves to peer review and receive their funding from the very people responsible for the problem. It's not objective at all.

Basically, The Friends of Science should never have ever been given the time of day, but thanks to media and political connections and the almighty dollar, they've been given far too much time in the debate.

David Roman said...

Well, the only thing is if we can't be objective ourselves then we become close minded. I don't think it matters what the subject is, unless it is 100 percent reality, we should always remember there is that amount of doubt that needs to be explored. I firmly believe that if people do not know the other arguments, they cannot firmly argue for the points they believe to be correct. Perhaps this particular documentary isn't very good in itself, but there are several other peer reviewed articles and studies by people who do not have vested interests that are in conflict with the IPCC findings. We can't just ignore that, or we become no better than those who ignore the evidence in favor of global warming. This doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist or that pollution isn't a dire matter. What it does mean is that there is always more viewpoints to explore, and the more we explore the various arguments, the better opinion we have.

No, we can't delay on this issue, but we also have to be willing to explore the other side in order to strengthen our opinions and evidence, and to ultimately strengthen our approach to solving this issue. For instance, there isn't much mention among people about the effects of deforestation on glacier temperatures. It seems that glacier melting is always directly and solely linked to global warming. People aren't going crazy trying to stop the forests from being chopped down, but are all in a frenxy trying to ratify Kyoto. Great, ratify Kyoto, but there's so much more that needs our attention just as urgently as Kyoto does. In other words, the more you research, the more holisticly you can look at these things, the more effective the intervention.

And yes, you singled me out by the very title of the post. You expressed your frustration with me, not the documentary I linked to. I really don't like when people single people out on their blogs, it's really not cool.

Pilot said...

I apologize then.

I'll reword the post/title.

David Roman said...

Thanks, now let's go get drunk and play ping-pong. That will solve everything. No hard feelings, just good debate and healthy controversy, haha.

Life Ruiner's Anonymous said...

i think this will require a musical duel.

Kimmy said...

i say a dance off is in the works

Pilot said...

There is really only one way Dave and I can truly... truly solve this issue.

Buffet eating contest.

Two men, two smorgs, one winner.

David Roman said...

Actually, I think a rock off is in order. You, me, and Miserloo.

Danny said...

No Dance off?? You guys scared you got no rhythm??

david roman said...

Man, you'll get served.

Kimmy said...

were are you from, its called stompin the yard

Danny said...

Fine fine, let's see these two mens stomp the yard on Friday. I'm sure afterwards they will have a little pillow fight. I'm putting $10 on Dave to win both. Any takers??

David Roman said...

Hey Pilot, you should call me if you see this. I can't find your cel number for the life of me, and Scott is nowhere to be found. Seeing as no one replied to the e-mails, I'm taking it we're not meeting tonight, but we should still figure out a time we can while you're here.

Friday at 5:50

Saskboy said...

"What it does mean is that there is always more viewpoints to explore, and the more we explore the various arguments, the better opinion we have."

There reaches a point though when you spend so much time exploring opposing viewpoint's weakenesses, that you start to waste time by learning every way they are debunked. We long ago reached that limit with the science telling us our pollution levels [of more than just GHGasses] are too high.