Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Objectiveland]

Correct

So her opinion is useless.

Incorrect

[Mavorpen]

So her opinion is useless.

Incorrect

Nope, correct. She has no training in science whatsoever, and fails to understand how science works.

[Divair]

Incorrect

Nope, correct. She has no training in science whatsoever, and fails to understand how science works.

And it was written in the 50's, not the 2010's.

[Objectiveland]

Incorrect

Nope, correct. She has no training in science whatsoever, and fails to understand how science works.

You don't have to have training in science to understand the motives of a looter.

[Divair]

a looter.

Never mind that scientists aren't known for being rich (or earning money from their research).

[Objectiveland]

Nope, correct. She has no training in science whatsoever, and fails to understand how science works.

And it was written in the 50's, not the 2010's.

That's what makes it so prophetic (not in the religious sense obviously)

[The Quadruple Alliance]

Sir, I neither affirm nor deny climate change, mainly because there is too much money on BOTH sides of the debate, and too little data. I make no assumption one way or another. It is not out of stubbornness, but because the money-politics of your side and your sides lack of sufficient convincing data on the issue.

What? What the hell do you consider "too little"?

Most people like me, who are skeptical of global warming do so because of the fact that in Climate Change Science is SECONDARY to Money and Politics. Thus, we do not believe there is sufficient proof, and it is up to you to prove your thesis.

We already have.

Many grants only give money to the pro-warming narrative. If you did not pollute the issue with money and politics, I would be more inclined to believe the data coming out of the research centers that take these sort of grants.

You have not "proven" anything sufficiently, in my opinion. The spike in "average world temperature" that we see on statistics coincides with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not a coincidence, the U.S.S.R. held many temperature data-collecting stations in colder areas, almost all of which collapsed with the Union and coincide with the sudden rise in temperature in the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph". The graphs showing global temperature could very well only be as a result of cold-weather temperature stations being shut down.

Combined with the obscene money and politics that powers your side of the science, I am thus not thoroughly convinced enough to support your idea. Do more research. Compile more data. Stop introducing bias into your grant-giving policies, and then get back to me with the data. I shall accept the data as proof when it is not influenced by money and politics.

And do not treat skeptics like heretics. That is how society and science move backward.

[Mavorpen]

Nope, correct. She has no training in science whatsoever, and fails to understand how science works.

You don't have to have training in science to understand the motives of a looter.

When that "looter" is a scientist, yes you do. Ayn Rand doesn't understand the fact that NO ONE claims that scientists are unbiased or don't take money. She also fails to understand that there's a reason for PUBLISHING. When you publish your research in a peer reviewed journal, you open it up to scrutiny. Bad science is weeded out.

Ayn Rand's opinion means jack shit.

[Cerian Quilor]

Then what do you propose we do, if the climate change deniers continue their stubbornness indefinitely and continue to promote humanity's destruction for their own private interests?

Sir, I neither affirm nor deny climate change, mainly because there is too much money on BOTH sides of the debate, and too little data. I make no assumption one way or another. It is not out of stubbornness, but because the money-politics of your side and your sides' lack of sufficient convincing data on the issue.

Most people like me, who are skeptical of global warming do so because of the fact that in Climate Change, Science is SECONDARY to Money and Politics. Thus, we do not believe there is sufficient proof, and it is up to you to prove your thesis.

There is far more money to be made in falsely 'debunking' climate change than proving it.

Moreover, science, not politics or pointless moral pladitudes, is the decision point on a matter like this.

[Divair]

And it was written in the 50's, not the 2010's.

That's what makes it so prophetic (not in the religious sense obviously)

No. It makes it irrelevant. Science adapts rapidly. A cult-like philosophy revolving around one person does not.

[The Quadruple Alliance]

Sir, I neither affirm nor deny climate change, mainly because there is too much money on BOTH sides of the debate, and too little data. I make no assumption one way or another. It is not out of stubbornness, but because the money-politics of your side and your sides' lack of sufficient convincing data on the issue.

Most people like me, who are skeptical of global warming do so because of the fact that in Climate Change, Science is SECONDARY to Money and Politics. Thus, we do not believe there is sufficient proof, and it is up to you to prove your thesis.

There is far more money to be made in falsely 'debunking' climate change than proving it.

Moreover, science, not politics or pointless moral pladitudes, is the decision point on a matter like this.

When you fund science, it gives you the answers you want. As I said, there is money on both sides. Which makes me think the whole issue is unscientific.

[Objectiveland]

a looter.

Never mind that scientists aren't known for being rich (or earning money from their research).

You're missing the point. They earn their living being paid by government looting. So they cannot bite the hand that feeds them.

[Divair]

When you fund science, it gives you the answers you want. As I said, there is money on both sides. Which makes me think the whole issue is unscientific.

Yes, all those filthy rich scientists being paid by the Illuminati to write about fake global warming


Over-exaggeration, but you get the point.

[Cerian Quilor]

Then no science in the world is valid, in your world?

Because someone has to pay for these things.

Newton got paid - is Gravity suddenly not valid?

[Divair]

Never mind that scientists aren't known for being rich (or earning money from their research).

You're missing the point. They earn their living being paid by government looting. So they cannot bite the hand that feeds them.

The government receives absurd amounts of money from oil & coal companies. Where is the giant force opposing these companies that is funding research supporting climate change?

[Mavorpen]

Many grants only give money to the pro-warming narrative. If you did not pollute the issue with money and politics, I would be more inclined to believe the data coming out of the research centers that take these sort of grants.

And? We have people giving money to the anti-warming narrative. That's how things are funded. The problem is you don't understand the purpose of PUBLISHING, whereby both the pro and the con sides must reveal their methods of experimentation, and others can repeat it. No matter what, we've gained a consensus that climate change is real. Claiming boogeyman changes nothing.

You have not "proven" anything sufficiently, in my opinion.

There's the problem. Your OPINION. It's not based on science at all.

The spike in "average world temperature" that we see on statistics coincides with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not a coincidence, the U.S.S.R. held many temperature data-collecting stations in colder areas, almost all of which collapsed with the Union and coincide with the sudden rise in temperature in the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph". The graphs showing global temperature could very well only be as a result of cold-weather temperature stations being shut down.

Source.

Combined with the obscene money and politics that powers your side of the science, I am thus not thoroughly convinced enough to support your idea. Do more research. Compile more data. Stop introducing bias into your grant-giving policies, and then get back to me with the data. I shall accept the data as proof when it is not influenced by money and politics.

Please, LEARN HOW SCIENCE WORKS. I'll post this AGAIN.

All research is biased. Someone pays for that research, and the scientist will always be interested in proving what the sponsor has hired him to prove, not the other way around. You can only make unbiased research in physics and mathematics, where the exact nature of those sciences leaves no room for interpretation.

I'm guessing you DON'T know how science works, right? Bad science is weeded out. It doesn't matter if you do research, if you refuse to publish it in a peer reviewed paper, it's junk. The reason we do this is so that other people can replicate your experiments, and if they gain the same results, it means that the probability your conclusions are correct increase. If they get different results, the conclusion's probability of being correct decrease.

Say, someone interested comes to the scientists and asks them to prove that homosexuality is completely normal, offering full sponsorship. Obviously, the organization in question will start researching with the goal of proving that homosexuality is normal in mind. While they may use scientifically-valid methods and be honest about the results, this goal still defines the purpose and context in which the results will be interpreted and displayed.

You can't prove that homosexuality is normal. NO scientific research papers are saying that it's "normal," because that isn't a scientifically objective term. Whether YOU the READER concludes it means it's normal has absolutely nothing to do with the scientists.

This is especially true on politically-sensitive subjects, where the probability of truly-unbiased research is almost zero.

And the biased, faulty research is weeded out.

Lrn2science

[Mavorpen]

There is far more money to be made in falsely 'debunking' climate change than proving it.

Moreover, science, not politics or pointless moral pladitudes, is the decision point on a matter like this.

When you fund science, it gives you the answers you want. As I said, there is money on both sides. Which makes me think the whole issue is unscientific.

Completely fucking wrong. That's what PUBLISHING is for, so that MULTIPLE parties can replicate the experiments.

[Mavorpen]

Never mind that scientists aren't known for being rich (or earning money from their research).

You're missing the point. They earn their living being paid by government looting. So they cannot bite the hand that feeds them.

Yes, ignore my post which completely shows you have no clue how science works. Keep it up, it totally makes you out to be an objectivist.

[Choronzon]

Absolutely. The Criminally Stupid should always be disenfranchised. As should the regularly stupid.

I am sympathetic to this opinion.

[Ostroeuropa]

These are the types of people who think science involves bubbling beakers and white lab coats and exclamations of eureka.

[GarriCorp]

Excerpt from http://www.examiner.com/article/hadley- ... and-emails

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

[Divair]

These are the types of people who think science involves bubbling beakers and white lab coats and exclamations of eureka.

*Knocks over potion, causing explosion*

SCIENCE.

[Choronzon]

You're missing the point. They earn their living being paid by government looting. So they cannot bite the hand that feeds them.

Yes, ignore my post which completely shows you have no clue how science works. Keep it up, it totally makes you out to be an objectivist.

Has anyone else noticed that Objectiveland is a really, really bad objectivist?

I've tossed around the idea that he's actually a regular whose taking us all for a ride in part to show how absurd the new troll naming rule is. But I'm a conspiracy theorist, so feel free to ignore my ramblings.

[Mavorpen]

Excerpt from http://www.examiner.com/article/hadley- ... and-emails

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

I'm still waiting for the relevance.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Several pages back I mentioned that the children (deniers) ought to be sent to their rooms and not be given a place at the big table. Nothing I've seen so far on this thread has caused me to change my mind.