Hard News: Don't call it a consensus
103 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Kracklite,
I quite like RNZ and don't mind Sean Plunket, but the rest of your comment above was very well put. :)
-
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny, therefore Francis Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
Comment of the week!
-
But you have found a glaring error anyway, its an abstract and we all know that that they twist the results.
Oh, THEM again.
Peer reviewed journals accept papers that present falsifiable hypotheses, not because they are already assumed to be true.
seal level and temperatures in NZ.
Really? I've seen no data on how warm seals are in NZ nor how tall they are.
Seriously, local/global yadda yadda yadda... I'm bored.
I have produced actual data to support what i have claimed, only in regard to seal level and temperatures in NZ.
You have produced nothing except to deconstruct what "truth " means.Tinfoil certainly is damned effective. The army should see about using it as armour.
I'm not going to repeat myself, because as you should know - but clearly don't - repetition does not make something false true. Neither does THE USE OF CAPS.
Terence, I do like RNZ actually. Immensely. Maybe I'm just too cranky in the mornings.
-
Bah!
Erratum before some smark-aleck responds:
I'm not going to repeat myself, because as you should know - but clearly don't - repetition does not make something false true.
... nor does it make something true more or less true.
-
Comment of the week!
I'd like to thank the Academy, my agent, my parents, Stanley Kubrick who is a true genius as a director (even if he is dead), the costume designer, Frank my poodle, the make up artists, the lighting technicians, the best boy (what does he do anyway?), my publicist, Nokia, all other corporations who had their products placed in this movie, Napoleon Bonaparte, the largest moon of the planet Saturn, Titan and its methane lakes as well as the planet Saturn itself and of course its rings... and above all, God.
-
I threw away my tinfoil hat in the 1980s when working close enough to the belly of the governing beast to stop believing in Conspiracy theories. Any of them.
On the evidence of my own eyes, Cockup theory and practice rules, all the way. ( Cindy B was even closer to the action, and may well have formed the same conclusion (Hi Cindy - LTNS!).)
Strange how the CC denialisers often cite access to funding as the motivation for so many scientists finding consensus on AGW. Seems to me it is a damned sight easier to find instant funding if you are willing to come down on the side of the extraction industries and their ilk. Their "think tanks" and "education foundations" seem awash with money. For a clue as to how far down the disinformation chain their influence spreads, try reading the acknowledgements of PJ O'Rourke's more recent books. Not a conspiracy of course, just a straightforward commercial arrangement.
But I would like to know who the Alan Cheetham is who puts together those anti-climate change web pages that Steve cites. He seems to have gone to quite some lengths to disguise his credentials, though the company he keeps online is decidedly sus. Alan B Cheetham is all I can find (not Alan H Cheetham the distinguished palaeontologist). Anyone know?
-
Not a conspiracy of course, just a straightforward commercial arrangement.
Reminds me of what Peter Watts has to say about his working history:
He spent ten years getting a bunch of degrees in the ecophysiology of marine mammals (how's that for unbridled optimism), and another ten trying make a living on those qualifications without becoming a whore for special-interest groups. This proved somewhat tougher that it looked; throughout the nineties he was paid by the animal welfare movement to defend marine mammals; by the US fishing industry to sell them out; and by the Canadian government to ignore them. He eventually decided that since he was fictionalising science anyway, he might as well add some characters and plot and try selling to a wider market than the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
Headlining his site, this dubious testimonial:
"Whenever I find my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts." —James Nicoll
Jolly fellow. Likes cats though.
-
Never give up on conspiracy theories!
1stly They great fun.
2ndly A cockup doesn't rule out conspiracy it only serves to prove that the act was found out.
3rdly They're often true - WMDs anyone?
& just a few others off the top of my head.Iran-contra. WaterGate. Prez of Ukraine poisoning by Russia & so too the Russian Billionaires in the UK. Murders in Philipines of environmentalist & Labour organisers. The video footage of villages being forcably removed from their land in China. Wanta Kidney anyone?
-
You and Peter Watts seem to have grasped the modus vivendi, Kracklite.
As did Anna Nicole and the grubby old billionaire when they found each other - willing buyer, willing seller, what's the problem?
Now don't go dragging morality into it.
-
Iran-contra. WaterGate. Prez of Ukraine poisoning by Russia & so too the Russian Billionaires in the UK...
True, to which I add the Gunpowder Plot and any secret cartel-type arrangement, including recent revelations of shady practices with ticket surcharges by BA and Virgin (Virgin fessed up).
However, one can't assume an equivalence of validity in conspiracy theories because some conspiracies have occurred. Eg., Nixon conspired to bug the Democratic Party headquarters and there are evidence and witness and convictions to support that and in any case, such a conspiracy is plausible - as is its cock-up. An implausible conspiracy is one that violates the laws of nature and involves a web of influence that seems both infinite in extent and in effectiveness (Majestic 12, the Trilateral Comission, Roswell, NASA covering up evidence of Martian civilisations, faking the Moon landings and so on).
There certainly are strange things flying out of Area 51/Groom Lake, but the hypothesis that they're technology demonstrators (not even prototypes, let alone operational squadrons) built by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works has a higher value of probability than flying saucers from Zeta Reticuli made by Greys as an explanation. A conspiracy theorist will say however that if there are secrets therefore there must be Greys and then get into a bizarre orgy of confirmation bias where every aquarium and streetlamp is proof of the Greys' influence.
The odd thing about the loopier conspiracy theorists is that they assume both infinite extent and infinite competence. Real large organisations certainly aren't like that!
As rules of thumb, I'd propose three indicators: first, the plausibility of a conspiracy theory is in inverse proportion to its supposed extent in space and time and effectiveness. Second, the more evil the conspirators are just for the sake of being evil, the less likely it is to be true and third, the greater the number of stages of concealment, the greater the likelihood that it's so shadowy it doesn't even exist (OK, Bankers manipulate markets, but a cabal of Jews behind the banking system, who pursue a still deeper, millennia-old agenda which is at another level transcending capitalism and communism in order to manipulate both? Not likely).
Some, alas, are downright dangerous - eg., the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That in fact does seem to be a real conspiracy, but the supposed documents were almost certainly concocted by the Tsarist secret police to incite and justify pogroms and seizures of assets within Russia (no doubt there's a good Wiki article that I can't be bothered linking to right now). To that I can add the 'conspiracy' by Satan to corrupt souls on earth and generally spread wickedness through witches. We all know where that went too...
It's not the conspiracy that's the problem, it's what the conspiracy is used to justify.
1stly They great fun.
Well, not to rain on your parade... maybe just drizzle a bit... some are, indeed: The Church of the Subgenius, the Illuminati and all that. As you might guess from my references, I do enjoy reading about them myself. Foucault's Pendulum is a fun read (it's about the last novel by Eco that didn't just irritate me).
-
H O Ransom at All Embracing but Underwhelming has an absolutely fascinating blog on conspiracy. I believe it's his PhD topic.
-
The odd thing about the loopier conspiracy theorists is that they [...]
Don't exist. I've met hundreds of people who think there's large groups of people out there who believe in grand conspiracy theories, and none who actually do. What would there be, a hundred in the whole country?
The media, OTOH, like to suggest, again and again, about how people who don't parrot the standard media line are completely insane. Yes, you heard me, "the media"; industry interests that don't happen to be in the common good.
-
Kracklite, you do go above and beyond the call of duty banging your head against this particular brick wall.
To the denialisers.
We all accept that humans have modified the land. We can see it around us everywhere. We can probably accept that humans have also altered the sea and it's creatures.
Why then is it so hard to take the next step in the logic that we may also have affected the atmosphere? -
I've met hundreds of people who think there's large groups of people out there who believe in grand conspiracy theories, and none who actually do.
So who's buying "Nexus", "Uncensored", and "Investigate?"
-
So who's buying "Nexus", "Uncensored", and "Investigate?"
And books by Richard Hoagland and Michael Crichton.
And there were plenty of mobs willing to burn witches. That's what motivates me - the fear of a society which will embrace such deadly illusions.
Kracklite, you do go above and beyond the call of duty banging your head against this particular brick wall.
I do it for pleasure. It feels soooo good... when I stop.
I know that I shouldn't even start - my First Life commitments are starting to line up at my door to have "a little talk" with me about time management. If I disappear, you can be assured that the Men in Black, Mr Guilt and Mr Paycheque, have taken me away to a top secret installation called Victoria University to befuddle innocent young minds with talk of volutes and mullions.
-
"I've met hundreds of people who think there's large groups of people out there who believe in grand conspiracy theories, and none who actually do."
And most of them are on Trade Me Message boards, it seems. Trade Me opened an Environment board recently, which was immediately invaded by impressive numbers of our compatriates wanting to let us all know that they were far too savvy to be taken in by this ropy climate change hoax. Ho ho, nudge wink.
If you spend much time online, it's salutory to remind yourself of the motto: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Which is probably why more women do not contribute as much to the discussions on PA as you would like, Russell, despite them telling you that's it ostensibly because all you blokes are just way too brainy and articulate. Trained from birth in the art of flattery, us....
-
Well you have certainly earned your break back in the real world after taking the battle to such heights here. A bit like Prince Harry perhaps?
Anyway you probably know this already but here's a rundown of why the brick wall is so stubborn.
Hat tip to someone from an earlier thread. Sorry can't remember who. -
A S,
I suspect most people would whole heartedly support moves against global warming if it wasn't for the unpleasant, evangelical zeal with which so many thrust their views down the throats of others.
I guess what I'm saying is, I suspect most people don't like the messengers on climate change/global warming, and do they react to the message in a negative way. Perhaps if the zealous fervour was wound back a few notches, the message might stand a better chance of getting through and being accepted.
Even though I do think there is an issue around climate change, I personally am quite capable of making my own mind up, and don't need a chorus telling me that I'm an idiot unless I agree with them. In fact, that is almost certainly the best way to get me to support the other argument, even if I know it is the wrong one.
I guess that on the whole I'm a bit uncomfortable with the style of so much of the commentary in so many forums that implies anyone who disagrees with a particular view point (whichever part of the spectrum that might be) is somehow a denialator/tree-hugging beardie/luddite/redneck etc. and I don't think it actually aids the vast majority of people out there who may well feel like they can't talk about it or ask the questions they have because they don't want to be labelled as one thing or another.
-
"denialisers" "denialators"
shesh you lot are sooo dated
try Denierz!
-
or maybe Deniarz!
-
I thought it worth pointing this discussion to the BBC's Richard Black's testing of the the alleged "conspiracy" that the scientific world is biased against the sceptics, and in favour of AGW scientific papers.
He wrote to all the sceptics he could find, to find the information which backed up this accusation.
Check out his results.
This was in a series of articles, and I'll link to the last one as well - mainly because he puts it far more eloquently than I ever could.
-
Forgot to mention that great great Arthur C Clarke quote, repeated in Chris Mooney's book about the science of hurricanes and global warming (Storm World)...
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
You'll find very few young scientists in the AGW sceptic camp.
-
dc_red wrote:
My dislike for McCully is intense and increasingly visceral. It's not like RB is replacing failed National Party candidate Paul Henry or anything....
And what do you think are the odds that if Paul Henry ended up on The Standard, with a lovely photo of him at a National Party fundraiser he'd be in Rick Ellis' office getting hit with the stupid stick?
Now I agree with RB that McCully was (to be generous) being rather mischievous, but next year it might be a better look if the Cartier Trust (an entirely worthy cause BTW) was a wee bit higher profile and the event looked a little less like a Labour campaign rally.
-
Can't resist, considering the ridiculous claims of heroism deniers attribute to themselves:
Behold! Before you stands Denius the Mighty, scion of the Clan Zetetic, guardian of the dread portal of the Moving Goalposts, wearer of the Impenetrable Helm of Tinfoil and Wielder of the Magic Talking Sword of Specious Rhetoric! Be enchanted by his adventures as he stalks the flat plains of the earth, avenging the persecution of the unclean tribe of the Unh-Ipicc mind-benders! His task will be arduous and victory will be uncertain, but he knows that he will vanquish the filthy Unh-Ipicc. His quest for justice will begin as he penetrates the Labyrinth in Inta-Necht and pores over the runes of ancient and unfalsifiable abstracts hidden therein without moving his lips! In those venerable and fusty documents he will find the map revealing the hidden Citadel of the Conspirators from which he will pluck the Cherries of Truth! His quest will not be easy, and along the way under the faces of the molten glaciers, he will have to confront the Dragons of Celsius, but he will be guided by the wisdom of the great sage Crichton and the wealth of the Clan of Exxon! Now if only he can get rid of that ringing in his ears...
-
Joseph Romm at Climate Progress has a go himself at a new name for deniers.
He opts for 'delayers'.What name can we possibly use for the people who are working feverishly to convince the public to ignore the broad scientific understanding of global warming and to delay taking serious action — action needed to avert a very grim fate for our children and their children and so on?...
...I — and many if not most other advocates for action — have used the term “deniers” or “denialists” for these people. But the more I think about it, and the more comments I read from delayers, the more I realize that the term doesn’t work, especially as a broad brush.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.