Ever wonder if the media thinks for itself?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Speaking of which, if you're going to criticize Glen Beck, shouldn't you provide some basis for it? I think he has a tendency to jump around like Richard Simmons from time to time, and I have grown really tired of his saying that only religionists are good guys, but I am in awe of his research team. He presents hard cold facts to back up his opinions and then says something like, "Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong." ;) Now, if I understood what fat_boy was driving at, it wasn't that he disagreed with the message (though we all know he does) but that fact that there really was only one story written by some A.P hack and picked up and quoted verbatim by many newspapers, even using the suggested headline which used to be a no-no in the not-so-distant past.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Thank you, at least someone understood what I was getting at!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Was your initial point with the link that all of the media sources had the same article? It's called an AP story that everyone just picked up on.
Yeah, its just verbatim regurgitation, even down to the headline. Hence my quesiton, do they think for themselves? Heck, do they even write these days or just copy paste?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Yeah, its just verbatim regurgitation, even down to the headline. Hence my quesiton, do they think for themselves? Heck, do they even write these days or just copy paste?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group. OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians -
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the GuardiansI didnt call it a conspiracy Ian. Its unprofessional though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
doesn't mean they already know what the results will be
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh? In any case models are a long way from the real world. This kind of junk science and its false results has been shown to be such by studies of real world frequency of extreme weather events and their non correlaton to temperature. And no, I am not going to cite, you should know of this already.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Yeah, its just verbatim regurgitation, even down to the headline. Hence my quesiton, do they think for themselves? Heck, do they even write these days or just copy paste?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
I didnt call it a conspiracy Ian. Its unprofessional though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
doesn't mean they already know what the results will be
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh? In any case models are a long way from the real world. This kind of junk science and its false results has been shown to be such by studies of real world frequency of extreme weather events and their non correlaton to temperature. And no, I am not going to cite, you should know of this already.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
except that the rules are based on hard science
Wrong! The rules are 70% unknown. And I am sure you are aware of that if you have followed the subject as closely as I have. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results
Yes. But that's because you are honest. If you had gone back and tweaked your rules until they behaved exactly as you expected them to, then you would be eligible to be hired by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the GuardiansIan Shlasko wrote:
In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
I can't resist saying it. Sounds like reality to me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
except that the rules are based on hard science
Wrong! The rules are 70% unknown. And I am sure you are aware of that if you have followed the subject as closely as I have. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
You keep using the old "You already know I'm right" argument... Quite arrogant and presumptive, and goes a long way to convincing people that you're wrong.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
You know, a few weeks ago, Bill Maher had a scientist on his show, and they briefly mentioned both Evolution/Creationism and Climate Change... I don't remember the guy's name... I think he was connected with the Natural History Museum or something... But he said, and I really love this quote: "Science doesn't care if you believe in it or not." So yeah, I'm going to be laughing when the last holdouts finally accept the fact that global warming IS happening, and that we're causing it... Actually, they never will... For some reason, people have a hard time grasping events that take more than a year to occur.
wolfbinary wrote:
It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
Guess I can consider myself lucky... When I start a new job, my colleagues are always a bit hesitant (I look rather young), but once I've established my Scotty-type reputation as a miracle worker, my warnings are always taken seriously :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
I can't resist saying it. Sounds like reality to me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Heh, I know... Isn't it great? :) I actually DID try to change the rules, to encourage some more "fun" behavior... But no matter what I did, they found a way to avoid combat and breed... Natural selection by definition.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around.
Almost every religion with the possible exception of Buddhism makes the same promise. They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
wolfbinary wrote:
Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true.
The very fact that you lump your social agendas together like that should be cause to question your attitude towards Global Warming. For the record, I think that that the state should stop trying to define, support or otherwise control the concept of marriage, smoked pot for the first time in '64, and have serious questions about whether global warming is occurring and grave questions about whether man-made CO2 has anything to do with it. I came to have those questions after originally believing that global warming was a fact and CO2 was causing it because I spent the time and effort to investigate in detail what was being postulated, what proofs were being offered and what solutions were being proposed. Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning. Luckily for the human race, no god has struck down all those who doubt and question in spite of all the outraged demands by those who wish to "rest assured" instead of uneasily thinking, that lightning strike all unbelievers dead on the spot.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
wolfbinary wrote:
When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around.
Almost every religion with the possible exception of Buddhism makes the same promise. They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
wolfbinary wrote:
Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true.
The very fact that you lump your social agendas together like that should be cause to question your attitude towards Global Warming. For the record, I think that that the state should stop trying to define, support or otherwise control the concept of marriage, smoked pot for the first time in '64, and have serious questions about whether global warming is occurring and grave questions about whether man-made CO2 has anything to do with it. I came to have those questions after originally believing that global warming was a fact and CO2 was causing it because I spent the time and effort to investigate in detail what was being postulated, what proofs were being offered and what solutions were being proposed. Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning. Luckily for the human race, no god has struck down all those who doubt and question in spite of all the outraged demands by those who wish to "rest assured" instead of uneasily thinking, that lightning strike all unbelievers dead on the spot.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Oakman wrote:
Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning.
Questioning is good... But have you seen fat_boy's repetitive crap? It's the same arguments over and over, trying to simplify every natural process down to elementary-school science. He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oakman wrote:
They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Oakman wrote:
Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning.
Questioning is good... But have you seen fat_boy's repetitive crap? It's the same arguments over and over, trying to simplify every natural process down to elementary-school science. He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Not really. I do not assume that the Pope is always a liar and a fraud (though I suspect that some folks in here would tell me i was wrong) but having looked at the matter of religion quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of every religion (again with the possible exception of the Buddhists) is to frighten, coerce, or otherwise insist that everyone believe in their particular version of a supreme being, and not so coincidently, insure tenure for its priests. Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists. (I remind you that Wolf Binary sees no difference between advancing social goal of gay marriage and advancing what purports to be a scientific theory) In both cases, having found them to be believers rather than doubters (i.e. scientists), I tend to question almost every pronouncement. I very much believe in the truism: Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming. Further, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Not really. I do not assume that the Pope is always a liar and a fraud (though I suspect that some folks in here would tell me i was wrong) but having looked at the matter of religion quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of every religion (again with the possible exception of the Buddhists) is to frighten, coerce, or otherwise insist that everyone believe in their particular version of a supreme being, and not so coincidently, insure tenure for its priests. Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists. (I remind you that Wolf Binary sees no difference between advancing social goal of gay marriage and advancing what purports to be a scientific theory) In both cases, having found them to be believers rather than doubters (i.e. scientists), I tend to question almost every pronouncement. I very much believe in the truism: Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming. Further, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
Oakman wrote:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Oakman wrote:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
o you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community?
I used them as an examples as I used the Catholic Church as an example. Al Gore, for instance, did not invent the Internet, and his movie, while definitely inconvenient, has been shown to be wrong in so many particulars that it cannot be considered a "truth." The head of the UN's climate research council has admitted to falsifying data. NASA has been shown to falsifying research and hiding results that do not support Global Warming and ditto for NOAH. And so on and so on. At a certain point, one has to begin assuming that those who agree with them are, themselves, refusing to deal with the truth. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, I am justified in thinking it's probably a duck until shown otherwise.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all.
As I said, I've never seen him do so. But I am afraid that fat_boy's lack of social graces in a chat room that once upon a time was known for its tough-mindedness is, for me, neither here nor there. I certainly have crossed swords with him on other issues where we have gone many rounds and taken a certain amount of joy in telling the other one he didn't know what he was talking about. But ultimately, for me, Global Warming is at best an open question and the folks who seek to silence those who question it more reminiscent of those who sought to silence Galileo than those who thought that perhaps an earth-centric view of the universe might not be all it was cracked up to be. Sometimes the Holy Fathers, whether they reside in Rome or East Anglia, are blowing smoke up our collective butt. I have found however, that folks who complain about his rants never seem to avail themselves of the simple option of ignoring his posts, or at least the threads he starts. For the life of me, I don't understand that.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Majerus wrote:
I would love to see one his awesomely researched programs filled with cold hard facts.
I'd be willing to bet that the next one you watch would be your first.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken