vbnautilus 48 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Well, my point is that those involved in global warming/climate change aren't concerned with the science in the first place. I think they mostly fall into the catagory of the "bad Scientists" mentioned in TW post.I don't see how you or I could possibly be in a position to make that judgment. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers." Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Hazaaa: Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 With billions of dollars in the research stream, not to mention a couple of bogus nobel prizes, if the slies parted and God himself said it was bogus, GORE and his band of merry followers wouldnt be taken off message.My new after the Holidays sig.Thank you sir. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 My new after the Holidays sig.Thank you sir.It's kind of out of context if you don't include this part though:To be fair tho, if all the polar bears dropped dead, the ice caps melted, and las vegas became a beachfront town, we wouldnt be swayed either. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Stupid polar bearsLink Link to post Share on other sites
nutzzcase 0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Stupid polar bearsLink Are polar bears allowed on Airplanes now? Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal Link to post Share on other sites
SCYUKON 0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 The more I read the better it gets:http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/ta...l?tag=mncol;txt Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."Huh?! so in the global warming debate which side are you accusing of distorting facts and blowing things out of proportion???? Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 . Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I know I've said this before, but I'm still baffled that so many of you would rather armchair it with Internet research than listen to LLY on this one.Because we would rather listen to Rush. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming? Link to post Share on other sites
strategy's_touch 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming?how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonable Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonableReasonable meaning I would like reporters to investigate something important rather than picking apart a book by sarah palin...seems very reasonable doesnt it Link to post Share on other sites
SCYUKON 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 I know I've said this before, but I'm still baffled that so many of you would rather armchair it with Internet research than listen to LLY on this one.I would love to listen to LLY explain this one. It appears to be a math problem. Not the usual kind though, kind of a man-made math problem. Hell I will even send him food.http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gl...warming_nz2.pdf Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal It would help if your source wasn't the Canada Free Press. I mean really. Judi McLeod is their Editor (in chief). This is the very opening of her own Thanksgiving article from yesterday. "As Americans sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, President Barack Obama and his band of malcontent hippy czars are out there fomenting for revolution. Progressives they are not, given that some of those same czars were fomenting for revolution back in the 60s when a kid named Barry was still in red diapers, having come into this world in 1961, in Country Unknown."Really.Oooooooooooooh yeah, that is some sweet sweet journalism. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 It would help if your source wasn't the Canada Free Press. I mean really. Judi McLeod is their Editor (in chief). This is the very opening of her own Thanksgiving article from yesterday. "As Americans sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, President Barack Obama and his band of malcontent hippy czars are out there fomenting for revolution. Progressives they are not, given that some of those same czars were fomenting for revolution back in the 60s when a kid named Barry was still in red diapers, having come into this world in 1961, in Country Unknown."Really.Oooooooooooooh yeah, that is some sweet sweet journalism.Tim - is Holdren involved? because if he is... it is news - no matter who writes it Link to post Share on other sites
strategy's_touch 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Reasonable meaning I would like reporters to investigate something important rather than picking apart a book by sarah palin...seems very reasonable doesnt itone of the world's many absurditiespaying that much attention to a completely irrelevant woman Link to post Share on other sites
SCYUKON 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 As I sit here enjoying myself reading all of the climategate e-mails, I just recalled an earlier thought that these book cooking scientists really need to be put in jail for crimes against humanity. I wonder if a prisoner's dilemna approach was taken with a bunch of these whitecoats, just how quickly they would start ratting each other out, if the end punishment for those not capitulating was going to be extremely harsh. Dare to dream........... Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Huh?! so in the global warming debate which side are you accusing of distorting facts and blowing things out of proportion????You missed my point. The parallel was with the eagerness of people to jump on the "you're wrong!" boat, as opposed to taking the "hey let's deal with this scientifically rationally" boat. The other point was that The Media (aka the megaphone) has a job to do, and that is to make headlines. Any mainstream media probably isn't a terribly good source on science. The same way I wouldn't go to CNN to read about the nuances of Terry Francona's defensive alignment against left-handed power-hitters, I'd be more likely to find accurate, rational ideas about global warming in a science magazine, or at least somewhere better than MSNBC or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 You missed my point. The parallel was with the eagerness of people to jump on the "you're wrong!" boat, as opposed to taking the "hey let's deal with this scientifically rationally" boat. The other point was that The Media (aka the megaphone) has a job to do, and that is to make headlines. Any mainstream media probably isn't a terribly good source on science. The same way I wouldn't go to CNN to read about the nuances of Terry Francona's defensive alignment against left-handed power-hitters, I'd be more likely to find accurate, rational ideas about global warming in a science magazine, or at least somewhere better than MSNBC or whatever.So which network or paper besides FOX has covered this story with their megaphone? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Tim - is Holdren involved? because if he is... it is news - no matter who writes itI don't know what you mean. I gave an example of some arrogant and childish writing from their main editor, in her most recent article. How is what you just said related to that at all?So which network or paper besides FOX has covered this story with their megaphone?Canada free press, apparently. I mean, I have no idea. I don't follow every worldwide news agency and what they report and how well they report it. Neither do you. I again don't understand why you're asking. If you're trying to imply that only fox news is covering it, I mean, there are links to like a half dozen articles in this thread, none of them fox news. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy's_touch 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 the world would be much better off if this garbage weren't politicized Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 I don't know what you mean. I gave an example of some arrogant and childish writing from their main editor, in her most recent article. How is what you just said related to that at all?Canada free press, apparently. I mean, I have no idea. I don't follow every worldwide news agency and what they report and how well they report it. Neither do you.I see you have edited your post - If NBS,CBS,ABC,NY Times,WAPO,AP,CNN,MSNBC ignore this story -The only news organization with any substantial reach in the US is covering the story is FOX newsLOL - you may not like her writing, but if Holdren is involved - it will be a big story I actually do follow how well they report it...http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/200...enu-sea-lions-phttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...ng-stories-readhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-marka...uch-climategatehttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...ues-ostrich-acthttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...climategate-cnn Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now