0
lawrocket

Conservatives and liberals both distort climate change

Recommended Posts

[Url]http://theconversation.com/fox-news-seeds-climate-doubts-but-liberal-media-also-distort-33565[/url]

Fascinating article. Yes, Fox News seeds denial. But all those who comment on the conspiracy of the oil companies have taken hook, line and sinker the liberal media bait.

Fox News does what MSNBC does - tell it's audience what it wants to hear.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think that Mathew Nisbet (the guy that wrote the article) did a good job and provided some great research data, but at the same time, he did let some of his liberal bias show.

Is partisan ship so ingrained into everyone now that they can't even right a simple article like this without trying to persuade people to their side? What happen to simply providing the facts and letting the people decide?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is partisan ship so ingrained into everyone now that they can't even right a simple article like this without trying to persuade people to their side? What happen to simply providing the facts and letting the people decide?



Did that ever happen? I don't remember ever reading a newpaper article that onyl had facts in them. Usually it would include facts, followed by (an opinion) what those facts could mean or what they might be caused by.

I think good journalism provides a few different viewpoints. Different viewpoints is now seen as "not having a backbone" or "not standing for something" and doesn't sell advertising. Hence, now you have to watch a few different channels/ read a few different articles to get your various viewpoints.

This "us vs. them" mentality seems to be getting stronger and stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally the selection of facts is part of bias. After all, no one knows or can publish all of the facts (e.g. weather, brand of underwear, whether a police officer had cereal or eggs for breakfast -- not all facts are relevant, are they?). So the facts that the writer, or the person giving the news briefing, or the boss of whoever is doing the reporting, etc. are the ones that are seen.

Which is why it's so easy to have an argument over facts

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Definitely true; there are distortions on both sides, primarily due to political motivations. Fortunately most scientists ignore the politics and focus on the science, which is why we have the understanding of the climate and what's changing it that we do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the magical climatology scientist. A wonderful creature, far elevated and evolved from the realm of man, that is completely immune to politics, funding, pride, group-think, peer pressure, and basic psychology that's ruled all other men since the dawn of time. With a wave of its hand, it can show that constant failures in predictions throughout decades as actual successes. It can survive blows to dogma that would have proven mortal any other discipline long ago!

Hail to you, climatology scientist! Truly, you are a sight to behold and worthy of all praise.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
devildog

Ah, the magical climatology scientist. A wonderful creature, far elevated and evolved from the realm of man, that is completely immune to politics, funding, pride, group-think, peer pressure, and basic psychology that's ruled all other men since the dawn of time. With a wave of its hand, it can show that constant failures in predictions throughout decades as actual successes. It can survive blows to dogma that would have proven mortal any other discipline long ago!

Hail to you, climatology scientist! Truly, you are a sight to behold and worthy of all praise.



Given a choice between trusting the words of a right wing politician, a lawyer, or a climate scientist on a matter of science, I'd choose to trust the scientist every time.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***Ah, the magical climatology scientist. A wonderful creature, far elevated and evolved from the realm of man, that is completely immune to politics, funding, pride, group-think, peer pressure, and basic psychology that's ruled all other men since the dawn of time. With a wave of its hand, it can show that constant failures in predictions throughout decades as actual successes. It can survive blows to dogma that would have proven mortal any other discipline long ago!

Hail to you, climatology scientist! Truly, you are a sight to behold and worthy of all praise.



Given a choice between trusting the words of a right wing politician, a lawyer, or a climate scientist on a matter of science, I'd choose to trust the scientist every time.

I don't see why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackC1

******
Given a choice between trusting the words of a right wing politician, a lawyer, or a climate scientist on a matter of science, I'd choose to trust the scientist every time.



I don't see why.

Unbefuckinglievable.:S:|

I sometimes neglect to use the :P icon when it seems obvious. Sorry if I was presumptuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy - ever have to deal with an expert in a subject who was simply not believeable? Ever have to, unfortunately, challenge that expert in something because the foundational assumptions are facctually invalid?

And ever get rebuked by someone saying, "you're just a lawyer. Who are you to challenge this expert's assessment or opinion?"


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Andy - ever have to deal with an expert in a subject who was simply not
>believeable? Ever have to, unfortunately, challenge that expert in something
>because the foundational assumptions are facctually invalid?

Sure, that's happened to all of us. But we still tend to listen to our doctors instead of Rush Limbaugh or Ellen Degeneres when it comes to medical advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]But we still tend to listen to our doctors instead of Rush Limbaugh or Ellen Degeneres when it comes to medical advice.



Correct. And we seek to educate ourselves, and the doctors educate us, so that we can make our own decisions. So if a doctor told me, "you've got this problem. A hydrocele. I'll need to remove your testicle" I'd say, "okay. Is there anything else that can be done? Like aspirating it?" And if the doctor says, "it'll just come back. Why take the chance?" then I'll say, "because I like my nut." And if the doctor says, "I'm the expert and I know what's best, and it needs to come out" I'll say, "thanks for the advice. But I'm going to get a second opinion because I think there are less drastic ways to manage this."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

[Reply]But we still tend to listen to our doctors instead of Rush Limbaugh or Ellen Degeneres when it comes to medical advice.



Correct. And we seek to educate ourselves, and the doctors educate us, so that we can make our own decisions. So if a doctor told me, "you've got this problem. A hydrocele. I'll need to remove your testicle" I'd say, "okay. Is there anything else that can be done? Like aspirating it?" And if the doctor says, "it'll just come back. Why take the chance?" then I'll say, "because I like my nut." And if the doctor says, "I'm the expert and I know what's best, and it needs to come out" I'll say, "thanks for the advice. But I'm going to get a second opinion because I think there are less drastic ways to manage this."



Would you get your second opinion from a lawyer? Career politician?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

I'd see another doctor. It'd be a sad state of affairs if 97% of doctors would insist that castration is the only way to treat a hydrocele. It would probably lead to a lot of distrust of the medical profession.



So you'd keep on asking for opinions until you heard one that agreed with your preconceptions. You'd need to ask about 23 doctors before you got one because it could be that 97% of MDs are better at diagnosing your actual medical condition than a lawyer.

Rather like the logic of a 3-year old - if you ask enough times you'll get what you want even if it's bad for you.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Correct. And we seek to educate ourselves, and the doctors educate us, so that
>we can make our own decisions. So if a doctor told me, "you've got this problem.
>A hydrocele. I'll need to remove your testicle" I'd say, "okay. Is there anything else
>that can be done? Like aspirating it?" And if the doctor says, "it'll just come back.
>Why take the chance?" then I'll say, "because I like my nut." And if the doctor
>says, "I'm the expert and I know what's best, and it needs to come out" I'll say,
>"thanks for the advice. But I'm going to get a second opinion because I think
>there are less drastic ways to manage this."

Now imagine you went to 30 doctors and they all said "sorry, it's testicular cancer, and removing the cancerous testicle is your best chance of survival."

But then you found doctor 31 who said "cancer is all a conspiracy by the medical profession to bilk you out of your money. Sure, cancer might kill you, but you don't have cancer, or if you do it's natural, and even if it isn't totally natural it means your cells are growing, and growth is good. You can't take any action because THE SCIENCE ISN'T SETTLED! So just go home."

I suspect you'd go with the opinions of the first 30 doctors, even if doctor 31 was telling you exactly what you wanted to hear. (And even if he had a popular radio show and hated Al Gore.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Correct. And we seek to educate ourselves, and the doctors educate us, so that
>we can make our own decisions. So if a doctor told me, "you've got this problem.
>A hydrocele. I'll need to remove your testicle" I'd say, "okay. Is there anything else
>that can be done? Like aspirating it?" And if the doctor says, "it'll just come back.
>Why take the chance?" then I'll say, "because I like my nut." And if the doctor
>says, "I'm the expert and I know what's best, and it needs to come out" I'll say,
>"thanks for the advice. But I'm going to get a second opinion because I think
>there are less drastic ways to manage this."

Now imagine you went to 30 doctors and they all said "sorry, it's testicular cancer, and removing the cancerous testicle is your best chance of survival."

But then you found doctor 31 who said "cancer is all a conspiracy by the medical profession to bilk you out of your money. Sure, cancer might kill you, but you don't have cancer, or if you do it's natural, and even if it isn't totally natural it means your cells are growing, and growth is good. You can't take any action because THE SCIENCE ISN'T SETTLED! So just go home."

I suspect you'd go with the opinions of the first 30 doctors, even if doctor 31 was telling you exactly what you wanted to hear. (And even if he had a popular radio show and hated Al Gore.)



If 32 out of 33 riggers (97%) told him his rig is unsafe to jump, would he jump it anyway? I guess so, given his statements here.

We know of a few now dead or disabled people who used to post on DZ.COM who were told not to downsize by a bunch of experienced skydivers but found someone who said they'd be OK.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***>Correct. And we seek to educate ourselves, and the doctors educate us, so that
>we can make our own decisions. So if a doctor told me, "you've got this problem.
>A hydrocele. I'll need to remove your testicle" I'd say, "okay. Is there anything else
>that can be done? Like aspirating it?" And if the doctor says, "it'll just come back.
>Why take the chance?" then I'll say, "because I like my nut." And if the doctor
>says, "I'm the expert and I know what's best, and it needs to come out" I'll say,
>"thanks for the advice. But I'm going to get a second opinion because I think
>there are less drastic ways to manage this."

Now imagine you went to 30 doctors and they all said "sorry, it's testicular cancer, and removing the cancerous testicle is your best chance of survival."

But then you found doctor 31 who said "cancer is all a conspiracy by the medical profession to bilk you out of your money. Sure, cancer might kill you, but you don't have cancer, or if you do it's natural, and even if it isn't totally natural it means your cells are growing, and growth is good. You can't take any action because THE SCIENCE ISN'T SETTLED! So just go home."

I suspect you'd go with the opinions of the first 30 doctors, even if doctor 31 was telling you exactly what you wanted to hear. (And even if he had a popular radio show and hated Al Gore.)



If 32 out of 33 riggers (97%) told him his rig is unsafe to jump, would he jump it anyway? I guess so, given his statements here.

We know of a few now dead or disabled people who used to post on DZ.COM who were told not to downsize by a bunch of experienced skydivers but found someone who said they'd be OK.

Not related because there is evidense that downsizing can kill you
Nothing similar exists in the AWG world
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you say to someone who predicted weather two years in advance?

Quote


Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky and up into West Virginia are expected to have 167 percent of their average snowfall this winter, according to WeatherBell, whilst much of the surrounding South Easer States is the snowfall this year is expected to be up a third on the average level.

The phenomenon is blamed on a solar vortex, forcing cold temperatures down the eastern seaboard and into the South East of the country. Similar effects are being seen in Russia, parts of China and across central Asia including Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan and down into Afghanistan. Most of Europe, conversely, is seeing markedly higher temperatures, as is Alaska.

The cooling was predicted at least two years ago by Russian scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov, supervisor of the Astrometria project on the International Space Station and head of space research at the Pulkovo Observatory, St Petersburg. Abdussamatov has predicted that this year will mark the start of a downward trend into a mini ice age, with its nadir in 2055. The cold period would be the fifth mini ice-age to occur in a millennium, suggesting that the climate is following a well-worn natural pattern.



pick you own source

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+cooling+was+predicted+at+least+two+years+ago+by+Russian+scientist+Habibullo+Abdussamatov%2C&oq=The+cooling+was+predicted+at+least+two+years+ago+by+Russian+scientist+Habibullo+Abdussamatov%2C&gs_l=hp.3...2728.2728.0.4645.1.1.0.0.0.0.251.251.2-1.1.0....0...1c..58.hp..1.0.0.fpxHdt0hKik
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Not related because there is evidense that downsizing can kill you
>Nothing similar exists in the AWG world

There is far more evidence for the CO2-warming link than the canopy size-fatality rate link. Of course, if you have a political or personal reason to not believe either one, you won't. There's ample evidence for both right here in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0