dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) I have explained why I am doing what I am doing. But you choose it ignore the explanations and create strawmen. I assume you are creating strawmen because it creates less cognitive dissonance than actually trying to understand my POV. Im not creating a strawman at all. Im accurately describing what you said, and in fact using almost the same words you did. And Im pointing out that your counterparts in the enviro-movement are doing the exact same thing you are, which is what has you in such a tizzy. Edited October 8, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Im accurately describing what you said, and in fact using almost the same words you did.No you are not. I said I would oppose all POLICIES until the science establishment cleaned up its act. That does not mean or imply I would advocate positions that are not supportable scientifically. Your trouble is you cannot separate the science from the actual policy. You think they are one in the same. They are not. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Whether you want to admit it or not, Tim, it's perfectly clear that you're quite possibly the worst poster for confirmation bias. It makes for good humour when you're criticizing the scientific community, which is based on competition and debunking each other, of the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 No you are not. I said I would oppose all POLICIES until the science establishment cleaned up its act. That does not mean or imply I would ignore the science. Your trouble is you cannot separate the science from the actually policy. You think they are one in the same. They are not. Yup thats exactly what I said. And that approach is exactly the approach climate change proponents are using on you. They dont trust you, they are suspicious of your motives, your processes, and the people that fund you, and what motivates you, so they are boycotting youre ideas and conclusions. Two sides of the exact same coin, both equally useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Whether you want to admit it or not, Tim, it's perfectly clear that you're quite possibly the worst poster for confirmation bias. It makes for good humour when you're criticizing the scientific community, which is based on competition and debunking each other, of the same thing. No no... Scientists are part of a vast socialist conspiracy to ruin the global economy! Edited October 8, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) They dont trust you, they are suspicious of your motives, your processes, and the people that fund you, and what motivates you, so they are boycotting youre ideas and conclusions.The difference is I am a semi-anonymous internet poster who's opinions are not heard much beyond my social circle and the 30 or regular posters on this board. A boycott is all I can do. The establishment has other other options. They can choose to constructively engage with their critics but choose not to. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Whether you want to admit it or not, Tim, it's perfectly clear that you're quite possibly the worst poster for confirmation bias.The real issue is here is you don't what to accept that skeptics have any legitimate views because it would undermine your world view. If you were reasonable you would look at the different arguments and you would acknowledge that in some cases the skeptics are right and the scientific establishment has screwed up badly. If you were reasonable you could even argue that these screw ups were the exception instead of the rule. But you can't be reasonable because you are too attached to your delusions and are psychologically compelled to say that everything skeptics say is wrong. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 But you can't be reasonable because you are too attached to your delusions and are psychologically compelled... Pot... Meet Kettle. You just described yourself to a tee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 The real issue is here is you don't what to accept that skeptics have any legitimate views because it would undermine your world view. If we go back to the Climate Change example - isn't it still evidence that things have gone too far ? After all, your assertion is that the link between CO2 and warming isn't as certain as the science establishment will admit - but even you agree that warming is happening. The thing is: a significant enough minority believes that global warming doesn't even exist. Isn't this proof of the thesis in the OP ? That minority is certainly significant and it shows that the public can be and is uninformed, especially when false facts can be bought and presented on media that pretend to be news shows. A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) After all, your assertion is that the link between CO2 and warming isn't as certain as the science establishment will admit - but even you agree that warming is happening.That is not exactly my assertion. CO2 will produce warming. I question whether the amount of warming will be large enough to be concerned about.The thing is: a significant enough minority believes that global warming doesn't even exist.The issue is why is this the case? The op suggests that because the media allow alternate views to be aired. I take the reverse: by failing to distinguish between reasonable skeptics and unreasonable skeptics the alarmists have undermined their own credibility and enhanced the credibility of the unreasonable skeptics.The only way to address the problem is to allow all views to be heard and have a public debate. At this point the alarmists are going to have to give ground and acknowledge the merits of the reasonable skeptics if they want to rebuild their credibility. I realize that that many here are so buried in their own delusions that they cannot comprehend that any skeptic is reasonable - but those delusions are the problem. Censorship would only exacerbate those problems - not help them. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 The only way to address the problem is to allow all views to be heard The article clearly discusses this confusion. This isn't about not being heard. Everyone is completely free to make their claims and be heard. The point is that claims which have no credibility do not and should not be taken seriously and are not entitled to be considered truth or considered to have any equivalence with credible claims. That doesn't mean people aren't free to express claims without any credibility. The media however doesn't have to humour them either and in fact should not be perpetuating a false equivalence between them and credible claims. The entire problem with FOX News consistently misinforming its viewers is that it gives false claims equal if not superior footing with credible ones, in the interest of being "fair and balanced." It's a fallacy that truth lies somewhere equidistant between two competing claims. One side could just be plain wrong. We need to stop giving credibility to that side by giving it a false equivalence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) The point is that claims which have no credibility do not and should not be taken seriously and are not entitled to be considered truth or considered to have any equivalence with credible claims.The problem who decides who is credible and who is not? No matter how you spin it the op is a thinly disguised attempt to censor views.We need to stop giving credibility to that side by giving it a false equivalenceThis excuse is used over and over again in the climate debate as way to suppress legitimate criticism. The only way to prevent abuse is remember that self appointed gatekeepers can never be trusted. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 What's credible are the arguments that can be backed up. What's legitimate are the arguments that have support. What's not legitimate are the opinionated guesses of people with absolutely no empirical support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) What's credible are the arguments that can be backed up. What's legitimate are the arguments that have support.And who decides which arguments have "support"? Who decides what arguments are "backed up"? More excuses to justify self appointed gatekeepers and censorship.What's not legitimate are the opinionated guesses of people with absolutely no empirical support.Then your are saying most of climate science is not legimate because when you look at the scientific basis what you find is a pile of "opinionated guesses of people with absolutely no empirical support". The only difference is "opinionated guesses of people with absolutely no empirical support" by people you approve of seems to deserve more consideration than people you don't approve of. Which brings us back to the untrustworthy gatekeeper problem.BTW: "opinionated guesses with absolutely no empirical support" that happen to be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal are still "opinionated guesses with absolutely no empirical support". Empirical support implies a higher standard of evidence than is needed to get published in a journal. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Who decides what is an argument? Who decides the meaning of who? Who decides what deciding is? Are any of us really here? What if we're all just brains in a vat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Who decides what is an argument? Who decides the meaning of who? Who decides what deciding is?Frustrated? That is the nature of the problem. The only reason you even thought this op had something worthwhile to say is you believe that the self appointed gatekeepers would make decisions that you agree with. But what if they didn't? What if these gatekeepers decided to look at paleo-climatology and apply the basic standards of scientific inquiry to the field? I am pretty sure you would not like the conclusions they would reach.In a world where we can't trust the gatekeepers we should not have any. Misinformation will get out there in the short term. It is a pain but something we have to live with if we want a free society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 And who decides which arguments have "support"? Who decides what arguments are "backed up"? More excuses to justify self appointed gatekeepers and censorship. Wel already have a system for deciding that and it works just fine. Basically you need to do some real work, and you need to document how you did it, and explain how your work supports your conclusions. Opinion pieces by "experts" on either side, should not carry much weight at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Wel already have a system for deciding that and it works just fine. Basically you need to do some real work, and you need to document how you did it, and explain how your work supports your conclusions.More meaningless fluff intended to rationalize censensorship. If you actually took the time to look at what some skeptics are say you would know that they have done an extraordinary amount of work and explained how it supports their conclusions. You would also know that *many* scientific papers do NOT document what they did the authors refuse to provide evidence that they did what they claimed even when asked. Bottom line is the system does not work in the way you claim. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) More meaningless fluff intended to rationalize censensorship. No its not meaningless fluff at all. It has nothing to do with censorship either. If you actually took the time to look at what some skeptics are say you would know that they have done an extraordinary amount of work and explained how it supports their conclusions. Yup, and those people are participating in this debate and their voices are being heard. And nobody is suggesting they be censored. Edited October 8, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Yup, and those people are participating in this debate and their voices are being heard. And nobody is suggesting they be censored.You are not paying attention. When Anthony Watts was interviewed on PBS, the network was inundated with people demanding that he be kept off the air. They used the exact same arguments about "false balance" that are used here.Whether you want to acknowledge it or not - the arguments in the op are being used today to rationalize censorship. That is why these argument must be strenuously rejected. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 You are not paying attention. When Anthony Watts was interviewed on PBS, the network was inundated with people demanding that he be kept off the air. They used the exact same arguments about "false balance" that are used here. Even by your own account Mr Watts was interviewed and his interview was broadcast. So wheres all the censorhip? And where is the documentation on all his research and experiments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Even by your own account Mr Watts was interviewed and his interview was broadcast. So wheres all the censorhip?Not in this instance. But the backlash will make PBS think twice before doing it again - especially since they "apologized" for letting a skeptic speak. This is a perfect example of how the "false balance" meme is being used by political activists to censor views that they disagree with. It has nothing to do with ensuring people get an accurate picture of the issues - it all about turning media into propaganda outlets. And where is the documentation on all his research and experiments?On his blog. Links to his peer reviewed papers too. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Nobody's being censored. They're not taken seriously because their work is not credible. You want to be taken seriously, then do serious work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Nobody's being censored. They're not taken seriously because their work is not credible. You want to be taken seriously, then do serious work.Who decides what work is serious? There is no objective measure for that adjective. These kinds of criticisms are often used as hand waving excuses to justify excluding views that not politically convenient. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 On his blog. Links to his peer reviewed papers too. Well good then! Sounds like he has done some real work, had it reviewed by his peers, and his voice is being heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.