Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They can call me a "denier" a "flat earther" a "skeptic" or anything they want. I know the claims by the CAGW/CACC alarmist crown is a SCAM and a FRAUD... but I'm not the one they will be judged by. That will be Dr. William Happer and his Climate Science Committee that President Trump is forming. Dr. Happer and his committee will take these folks to task.
Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change
In recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots. Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people — they can be directly measured, with such exotic instruments as a “thermometer.”
I never claimed that the five-star reviews don't matter, but that the one-star reviews tend to have better information.
If there are 100 reviews for an item, and if 90 are 5-star reviews and 10 are 1-star reviews. I'll read a few 5-star reviews, then read every single 1-star review.
I already know what the advertiser is trying to sell. What I need to know is whether the item is well-made. And if you want to know whether an item has flaws, you have to read the one-star reviews. Someone who only reads the 5-star reviews, or who buys based only on the average-ratings, is a moron.
I've read plenty of the five-star reviews on climate-change. These people want me to spend money, or to otherwise pay a cost for what they're selling. So before I buy, I'm going to read the one-star reviews to see if there are any reasonable criticisms for the product the alarmists are selling.
I am struggling to apply the effort to be informed to these rating systems, but if you insist...
Reviews are simply what they claim to be. Either they are reviews by movie critics, or a group of movie people (like the The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), or a poll of opinion among people who have seen the movie. Mostly all different measures of what makes for entertainment, which of course is a very subjective thing. Either way, depending on what sort of rating or ranking works best for you, you judge accordingly. Also a rather subjective matter...
I would say the effort to separate truth from nonsense, fact from fiction, involves a similar type effort in terms of judging what source of information or opinion to consider, but ultimately I think what works best all considered is to consider all worthwhile information possible. This is how one "triangulates for the truth," and that effort with respect to issues that remain controversial (for some) should never really end.
To this end, I think perhaps the more important question is how to determine what information and opinion is most worthy? How do we determine what is more truth regardless the bias, regardless the agenda? How do we see through the bias and agenda in order to determine the truth? With respect to science, I think the scientific method that includes peer review is the best chance for arriving at the truth, as I believe our history since science began has proven well. What we have learned since the "Scientific Revolution" began.
Which is fine. I don't even fault them for it, because otherwise people will just kick the can down the road.
But can't you take that too far? My sister burns all her food because she is so terrified of food-poisoning.
My point is, you don't actually have to spend any money on climate-change to stop it. In fact, if our government stopped spending any money whatsoever, we would be carbon-neutral within a month.
But would it be worth it?
I just get frustrated because the only answer to climate-change ever presented is "spend more money".
Regardless, my point is that heat-stroke is primarily associated with cities, since cities get hotter and stay hotter longer because of the urban heat-island phenomenon. And that there have been increasingly-fewer weather-related deaths, both heat and cold.
Most who share the concerns about what we are doing to our environment would say we've "kicked the can down the road" way too long already, and rightfully so given my understanding of the sad extent of damage already done on so many levels...
Yes of course anyone can take anything "too far." Why I always say, "balance is key!"
That people can take any concern and react to the point of FUBAR is NOT, however, reason to go the other way and under react. It's that "sweet spot" of understanding that serves us best, and in many cases the basic "better safe than sorry" rule of thumb tends to be prudent. Something like buying insurance...
You are right there is much that can be done that doesn't necessarily require we spend money to address SOME issues brought on by man as we have most recently impacted the environment far more than we have during the course of our prior 10,000 years on the planet. However, when we consider all that has been done in the way of pollution most recently, driven purely by profit without concern or responsibility for the environmental damage, it is impossible to think the environment can be protected without balancing that "double edged sword." Again, simply put, to better protect the environment, the cost of damage done needs to be factored into the business model, or business interests will continue to rape the environment for profit.
Need anyone provide the history of how this has been the problem for too long now? Not only with respect to just one industry, like the oil industry for example, but countless others? Manufacturing, mining, lumber, auto, chemical. Again, simply read the book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," (by Jared Diamond) if you need any convincing whatsoever. All non-fiction that even a fool cannot deny...
"The problem of bull**** transcends political bounds, the class teaches. The proliferation of bull****, according to West and Bergstrom, is “not a matter of left- or rightwing ideology; both sides of the aisle have proven themselves facile at creating and spreading bull****. Rather (and at the risk of grandiose language) adequate bull**** detection strikes us as essential to the survival of liberal democracy.” "
I am struggling to apply the effort to be informed to these rating systems, but if you insist...
Reviews are simply what they claim to be. Either they are reviews by movie critics, or a group of movie people (like the The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), or a poll of opinion among people who have seen the movie. Mostly all different measures of what makes for entertainment, which of course is a very subjective thing. Either way, depending on what sort of rating or ranking works best for you, you judge accordingly. Also a rather subjective matter...
I would say the effort to separate truth from nonsense, fact from fiction, involves a similar type effort in terms of judging what source of information or opinion to consider, but ultimately I think what works best all considered is to consider all worthwhile information possible. This is how one "triangulates for the truth," and that effort with respect to issues that remain controversial (for some) should never really end.
To this end, I think perhaps the more important question is how to determine what information and opinion is most worthy? How do we determine what is more truth regardless the bias, regardless the agenda? How do we see through the bias and agenda in order to determine the truth? With respect to science, I think the scientific method that includes peer review is the best chance for arriving at the truth, as I believe our history since science began has proven well. What we have learned since the "Scientific Revolution" began.
Peer review is only a means of determining whether a paper is published, and even in that peer review process, skeptics have demonstrated repeated bias by the reviewers against any paper which doesn't toe the line of CAGW/CACC alarmists.
After a paper has been published, it STILL must withstand ALL skeptical scientific challenges. If even one person, regardless of scientific pedigree, (mind you having a MS or Phd. in just about any even remotely related science should be grounds to at least examine the scientific falsification) can reasonably falsify the theory, then the theory is no longer valid. This is a major part of the scientific method.
Having a published, peer reviewed paper does NOT make something a valid scientific theory if it cannot withstand falsification.
Peer review is only a means of determining whether a paper is published, and even in that peer review process, skeptics have demonstrated repeated bias by the reviewers against any paper which doesn't toe the line of CAGW/CACC alarmists.
After a paper has been published, it STILL must withstand ALL skeptical scientific challenges. If even one person, regardless of scientific pedigree, (mind you having a MS or Phd. in just about any even remotely related science should be grounds to at least examine the scientific falsification) can reasonably falsify the theory, then the theory is no longer valid. This is a major part of the scientific method.
Having a published, peer reviewed paper does NOT make something a valid scientific theory if it cannot withstand falsification.
I did not suggest the peer review process is the end-all when it comes to separating fact from fiction, but I do believe the scientific method, again that -- INCLUDES the peer review process -- is as good as any when it comes to the effort. Also of course, what is wonderful about science is that it allows for, in fact encourages, all theory to be tested and retested over time to further confirm validity, adjust or declare as no longer valid.
That agenda to arrive at the truth, objectively, regardless prior dogma from within or without is what makes science standout above all other "voices" that would have us believe anything else. How many other versions of truth can affirm anywhere near that level of commitment to arrive at the truth wherever it may lead? Even to the point of promoting continued open re-evaluation of all theory, opinion and "proofs."
That man is flawed and that mistakes have been made since the Scientific Revolution began very recently in our history does NOT mean the scientific method is anything but superior to all other approaches toward clarifying the truth about what is going on around us.
I did not suggest the peer review process is the end-all when it comes to separating fact from fiction, but I do believe the scientific method, again that -- INCLUDES the peer review process -- is as good as any when it comes to the effort. Also of course, what is wonderful about science is that it allows for, in fact encourages, all theory to be tested and retested over time to further confirm validity, adjust or declare as no longer valid.
That agenda to arrive at the truth, objectively, regardless prior dogma from within or without is what makes science standout above all other "voices" that would have us believe anything else. How many other versions of truth can affirm anywhere near that level of commitment to arrive at the truth wherever it may lead? Even to the point of promoting continued open re-evaluation of all theory, opinion and "proofs."
That man is flawed and that mistakes have been made since the Scientific Revolution began very recently in our history does NOT mean the scientific method is anything but superior to all other approaches toward clarifying the truth about what is going on around us.
Peer review is only a means of determining whether a paper is published, and even in that peer review process, skeptics have demonstrated repeated bias by the reviewers against any paper which doesn't toe the line of CAGW/CACC alarmists.
After a paper has been published, it STILL must withstand ALL skeptical scientific challenges. If even one person, regardless of scientific pedigree, (mind you having a MS or Phd. in just about any even remotely related science should be grounds to at least examine the scientific falsification) can reasonably falsify the theory, then the theory is no longer valid. This is a major part of the scientific method.
Having a published, peer reviewed paper does NOT make something a valid scientific theory if it cannot withstand falsification.
"Peer Review" is problematic. It's adulterated by bias. There was just recently a scandal that came to light about this.
Seems a common conservative argument to find example of how anything is not perfect and as such suggest we should consider the entire process unworthy, like this too with respect to the peer review process. I dont' think this link suggests any such conclusion...
"A handful of hoax papers will not likely change the course of a field, but to applaud such fraudulence undermines the importance of evidence-based thinking."
Not sure who is applauding such a thing, but again, yes of course there is nothing that involves humans that is perfect, especially when it comes to the more complex process of objective reasoning. This agenda to undermine the whole with a few examples of fraud is what we should certainly not "applaud." Or what is the end result? We rely only on what our gut tells us? As ignorant as most of us tend to be about most things?
I really don't think so...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
