Except that it isn't 98%. Even Skeptical Science said it was only 95%, and that was only of "active climate scientists who are actively publishing about climate science"... not even a majority of the people in the field.
Of those who are not active climate scientists who are not actively publishing, it is pretty easy to show that the number is well below 95%.
So no. "Nearly all" is just wrong. You are wrong. Live with it.
Two very big indicators -- the title and the very first, opening sentence of the abstract -- very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased:
"NASA faked the moon landing -- Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
"trying to apply the true Scotsman defense will work on slashdot?"
Or, wait. Maybe my guess was wrong. Were you referring to my comment about "extreme" conspiracy theory, as opposed to just conspiracy theory in general? I'm not trying to play "no true Scotsman" here. On the contrary.
But first let me explain what I was saying. There are conspiracy theories and there are conspiracy theories. For example, most people in their right minds don't believe that the moon landing was faked. So I consider that to be one of the extreme ones. I am sure you have heard many; there are lots of tinfoil-hat theories out there.
But what about Watergate? That was a conspiracy. A real one. What about the Eastern-bloc spies that were caught a few years ago? That was a real conspiracy.
What about the theories pertaining to 9/11? I would not blame you for believing either way there, because while it seems rather extreme to imagine that our own government did it, on the other hand there is some very strong and real evidence that we have not been told the whole truth about it. So I would not count it among the "extreme" theories. Others may have other opinions.
But that was the only point I was trying to make. I was not trying to exclude things like the "one true Scotsman" fallacy does. If anything, it's the other way around: THEY wrote "conspiracy theories" but seem to have excluded the milder ones.
No, I did not see your earlier reply IN ANOTHER TOPIC, but even if I had I would not have been inclined to answer it.
Your comment here is not JUST off-topic, it also has absolutely nothing to do with any of the arguments I have made here.
I have no intention of getting into this crap with you again. Scientist or not, you have demonstrated a very thick head, not even understanding until after 5 or 6 repeats over a long period of time that someone said they were NOT going to sue you.
What have these things you just posted to do with the topic at hand? Did I once argue anywhere in THIS thread that there was anything wrong with AGW theory? (It is pretty easy to see that I did not.) So why are you bringing these things back up again?
Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?
I want to make this very clear: I will probably (no promises) not post replies to your comments at all from now on, even if you post something that is actually relevant. I will be limiting myself to the occasional notice to Slashdot readership along these lines: "I have a personal policy against responding to this person."
Your actions right here should be enough to explain why. You are obnoxious and obtuse, and I owe you nothing.
You have assumed too much about the arguments I was making.
In this particular instance, I don't care whether you consider AGW to be good science, and I don't give the slightest damn whether there is "consensus". The paper states "Nearly all..." which is simply false. No fancy argument here, or claims that the science is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that they are making a provably false claim.
Second, you missed the point that their paper actually appears to correlates the things it claims to extreme conspiracy theory, rather than just conspiracy theory. That is a significant departure from what their abstract implies they are trying to show.
Third, it is absurdly obvious that their survey used a self-selected, non-representative sample. If you want to talk about science -- or rather, the lack of it -- there it is. Anybody who has taken Statistics 101 can tell you that this paper doesn't actually show much of anything.
That post on Skeptical Science is a joke. Or might as well be, for all the factual content it contains.
For example, their facetious narrowing of the problem domain to "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers". There's the "no true Scotsman" argument for you. Then -- this is really rich -- they go on to cite Naomi Oreskes' thoroughly discredited essay on "consensus", as if it really meant something. But wait! There's more! THEN they actually claim (talk about lying by omission!) that Benny Peiser "retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey", and as evidence they give a paragraph taken out of context.
Peiser did retract ONE specific criticism of Oreskes' paper. [pdf] But he has far more than just that one... it wasn't even a very important one. He did not retract his criticisms (plural). Skeptical Science's attempt to give the impression that his multiple criticisms were retracted is yellow journalism of the first order.
THEN they play straw-man, citing a survey that asked scientists "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" What is wrong with that? What is wrong is the fact that a great many scientists believe that land-use changes has has MORE effect on climate than CO2. So this survey is completely useless in determining how many agree about CO2-based warming.
I could go on, but I see no need. That page is the biggest pile of half-truths and implied untruths that I have seen in a long time.
"trying to apply the true Scotsman defense will work on slashdot?"
How do you figure? I'm doing no such thing.
Even if you take the information at the link the other poster supplied (and SkepticalScience can hardly be called an unbiased source, but let's pretend they are), they state that about "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." Let's also ignore for the moment that they might have particular monetary or career incentive to do so, and just take this all at face value. That leaves 5% who do not agree. 95% is not "nearly all", nor is 5% "nearly none".
Further, look at the exact statement they make. That 95% is "active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers". That is hardly the entire group of "domain experts". So that figure presents the opinion of a very narrow subset of people who can be considered to be "experts" in the field. Further yet, it is easy to show that the opinions of those who are not actively publishing is NOT 95%, or even very close to it.
So the answer is no. The statement "nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate" is false. I don't care how you slice it, it's false. No nitpicking or "no true scotsman" involved. If anybody is using that technique, it is the authors of this paper, and the authors that post on Skeptical Science. THEY are the ones who are deliberately excluding classes of people who might disagree, which is the essence of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Considering that her husband's political policies are directly responsible for sh*t like this happening. (If you don't believe me, then why did he appoint a former RIAA chief to his cabinet?)
"Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes."
Then you have your thinking exactly backward, because Franklin's maxim was all about innocent people NOT having to pay for the mistakes of others.
Besides the obvious meaning (being falsely accused), there is also the concept that a society that does not strongly protect the innocent is a society in which there is greater suffering. History tends to bear this out.
"This maxim is fine as far as it goes, but ignores consequences."
It is in fact a maxim, or statement of principle. It isn't intended to be taken quite literally.
But Franklin was not stating something original, either. Very similar statements had been made by others prior to Franklin before his time, back to John Locke and others.
"Leave it to Slashdot commenters to provide free evidence for the study!"
Two very big indicators -- the title and the very first, opening sentence of the abstract -- very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased:
"NASA faked the moon landing -- Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
Even among hardcore "conspiracy theorists", disbelieving in the moon landing is a rather extreme view. The immediate impression I get is that this isn't about correlations with "conspiracy theory" at all, but with extreme conspiracy theory. Which weakens their argument a good deal.
Extreme conspiracy theories of the kind mentioned ("The CIA killed Martin Luther King, Jr." and "NASA faked the moon landing" are not representative of conspiracies or conspiracy theories in general. Real conspiracies can and do happen. If you don't "subscribe" to at least "one or more" of the less extreme conspiracy theories that are out there, you are probably not a very rational person.
Then there is the first sentence of the abstract:
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate..."
The very first sentence of the paper is demonstrably false, and indicates a lack of understanding of the very science they cite. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the paper.
Last but far from least, their "study" was actually a survey of a self-selecting segment of the population that represents only a very tiny percentage of the total, and not at all likely to be representative. To anyone who ever studied statistics in school, that should be a giant red flag.
"If you're not willing to walk away without a sal/purchase, you're not actually negotiating."
Again, that's not the same thing. Of course you must be willing to walk away if you are negotiating.
But even according to U.S. courts, "take it or leave it" is not "negotiation". Your argument only applies *IF* you are negotiating. But a fixed price with no wiggle room doesn't qualify.
"V Comparatives and other independent testers (e.g. CNet, PCMag, etc.) show NIS at the top in terms of detection, removal, low-system resource utilization, etc. "
They also know which side of their bread the butter is on.
"Norton" brand software products started going downhill the moment Peter Norton sold his interest to Symantec. I watched it happen. It got gradually but steadily worse. The last "Norton Suite" I ever used (years ago) installed so many resident programs and other JUNK that my system slowed to a crawl, and did not supply enough configurability for me to just run those that I wanted.
I reamed every last trace of Symantec software off my hard drive, and never went back. And never regretted it.
"All the complainers are going to have used their own knowledge of someone's desires to benefit themselves sometime in their life, and they'll still remain self-righteous and indignant."
But it's not the same thing.
I can use my knowledge of someone else's desire in a negotiation. And I might come out ahead thereby. But it's not the same thing. That is negotiation. This scheme is not. They give you a price, and that's it. You aren't negotiating, and you can't talk it down. It's take-it-or-leave-it.
But this is the very definition of a "fishing expedition", which is against some of the most very basic legal principles and Constitutional rights of the American people.
Scientists know -- and have been saying -- that DNA is far weaker evidence than prosecutors have tried to paint for the last few decades. But really more to the point: even if a conviction were made, it is not worth the loss of freedom and potential abuse this procedure involves.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
Actually, according to an article I read about 6 months ago, the vacuum-welding that people have been predicting for many decades just basically doesn't happen. Very rarely, if at all. As far as I know nobody has managed to explain why.
I was thinking the same thing. There are lots of locking toggle-type fasteners that could probably take the place of most external bolts on something like the ISS. In general, even compared to ideal conditions involving bolts, they can be much easier to install and remove. I think they would even be easier to machine into the parts.
Slashdot Mirror
Typographical error: it should have said "Of those who are NOT active climate scientists who ARE actively publishing..."
Except that it isn't 98%. Even Skeptical Science said it was only 95%, and that was only of "active climate scientists who are actively publishing about climate science"... not even a majority of the people in the field.
Of those who are not active climate scientists who are not actively publishing, it is pretty easy to show that the number is well below 95%.
So no. "Nearly all" is just wrong. You are wrong. Live with it.
No, it hasn't been a pleasure at all. And you are a fine one to talk about "charming". (In case you missed it, that was sarcasm.)
I see. Still, not in the amount or degree that many people predicted. Vacuum welding used to be a staple in sci-fi stories, if I recall.
" don't you for a moment think that Hollywood won't or doesn't invest in the other side too..."
Of course. But my comment was about Obama, not about them.
"Obama is responsible for the DMCA that was passed before he was ever in political office?"
No but he hasn't tried to do anything about it, and he has been notoriously friendly to "Big Content", RIAA, and MPAA.
He may not have signed it, but he has certainly shown support for it. So, yes. I think this is poetic justice, in a very small way.
Two very big indicators -- the title and the very first, opening sentence of the abstract -- very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased:
"NASA faked the moon landing -- Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
Whoosh.
Yes, indeed.
"trying to apply the true Scotsman defense will work on slashdot?"
Or, wait. Maybe my guess was wrong. Were you referring to my comment about "extreme" conspiracy theory, as opposed to just conspiracy theory in general? I'm not trying to play "no true Scotsman" here. On the contrary.
But first let me explain what I was saying. There are conspiracy theories and there are conspiracy theories. For example, most people in their right minds don't believe that the moon landing was faked. So I consider that to be one of the extreme ones. I am sure you have heard many; there are lots of tinfoil-hat theories out there.
But what about Watergate? That was a conspiracy. A real one. What about the Eastern-bloc spies that were caught a few years ago? That was a real conspiracy.
What about the theories pertaining to 9/11? I would not blame you for believing either way there, because while it seems rather extreme to imagine that our own government did it, on the other hand there is some very strong and real evidence that we have not been told the whole truth about it. So I would not count it among the "extreme" theories. Others may have other opinions.
But that was the only point I was trying to make. I was not trying to exclude things like the "one true Scotsman" fallacy does. If anything, it's the other way around: THEY wrote "conspiracy theories" but seem to have excluded the milder ones.
khayman80:
No, I did not see your earlier reply IN ANOTHER TOPIC, but even if I had I would not have been inclined to answer it.
Your comment here is not JUST off-topic, it also has absolutely nothing to do with any of the arguments I have made here.
I have no intention of getting into this crap with you again. Scientist or not, you have demonstrated a very thick head, not even understanding until after 5 or 6 repeats over a long period of time that someone said they were NOT going to sue you.
What have these things you just posted to do with the topic at hand? Did I once argue anywhere in THIS thread that there was anything wrong with AGW theory? (It is pretty easy to see that I did not.) So why are you bringing these things back up again?
Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?
I want to make this very clear: I will probably (no promises) not post replies to your comments at all from now on, even if you post something that is actually relevant. I will be limiting myself to the occasional notice to Slashdot readership along these lines: "I have a personal policy against responding to this person."
Your actions right here should be enough to explain why. You are obnoxious and obtuse, and I owe you nothing.
You have assumed too much about the arguments I was making.
In this particular instance, I don't care whether you consider AGW to be good science, and I don't give the slightest damn whether there is "consensus". The paper states "Nearly all..." which is simply false. No fancy argument here, or claims that the science is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that they are making a provably false claim.
Second, you missed the point that their paper actually appears to correlates the things it claims to extreme conspiracy theory, rather than just conspiracy theory. That is a significant departure from what their abstract implies they are trying to show.
Third, it is absurdly obvious that their survey used a self-selected, non-representative sample. If you want to talk about science -- or rather, the lack of it -- there it is. Anybody who has taken Statistics 101 can tell you that this paper doesn't actually show much of anything.
That post on Skeptical Science is a joke. Or might as well be, for all the factual content it contains.
For example, their facetious narrowing of the problem domain to "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers". There's the "no true Scotsman" argument for you. Then -- this is really rich -- they go on to cite Naomi Oreskes' thoroughly discredited essay on "consensus", as if it really meant something. But wait! There's more! THEN they actually claim (talk about lying by omission!) that Benny Peiser "retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey", and as evidence they give a paragraph taken out of context.
Peiser did retract ONE specific criticism of Oreskes' paper. [pdf] But he has far more than just that one... it wasn't even a very important one. He did not retract his criticisms (plural). Skeptical Science's attempt to give the impression that his multiple criticisms were retracted is yellow journalism of the first order.
THEN they play straw-man, citing a survey that asked scientists "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" What is wrong with that? What is wrong is the fact that a great many scientists believe that land-use changes has has MORE effect on climate than CO2. So this survey is completely useless in determining how many agree about CO2-based warming.
I could go on, but I see no need. That page is the biggest pile of half-truths and implied untruths that I have seen in a long time.
"trying to apply the true Scotsman defense will work on slashdot?"
How do you figure? I'm doing no such thing.
Even if you take the information at the link the other poster supplied (and SkepticalScience can hardly be called an unbiased source, but let's pretend they are), they state that about "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." Let's also ignore for the moment that they might have particular monetary or career incentive to do so, and just take this all at face value. That leaves 5% who do not agree. 95% is not "nearly all", nor is 5% "nearly none".
Further, look at the exact statement they make. That 95% is "active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers". That is hardly the entire group of "domain experts". So that figure presents the opinion of a very narrow subset of people who can be considered to be "experts" in the field. Further yet, it is easy to show that the opinions of those who are not actively publishing is NOT 95%, or even very close to it.
So the answer is no. The statement "nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate" is false. I don't care how you slice it, it's false. No nitpicking or "no true scotsman" involved. If anybody is using that technique, it is the authors of this paper, and the authors that post on Skeptical Science. THEY are the ones who are deliberately excluding classes of people who might disagree, which is the essence of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Well, I don't want to nitpick, but again from a technical standpoint, "take it or leave it" does not qualify as negotiation.
Look up "contract of adhesion".
Considering that her husband's political policies are directly responsible for sh*t like this happening. (If you don't believe me, then why did he appoint a former RIAA chief to his cabinet?)
"Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes."
Then you have your thinking exactly backward, because Franklin's maxim was all about innocent people NOT having to pay for the mistakes of others.
Besides the obvious meaning (being falsely accused), there is also the concept that a society that does not strongly protect the innocent is a society in which there is greater suffering. History tends to bear this out.
"This maxim is fine as far as it goes, but ignores consequences."
It is in fact a maxim, or statement of principle. It isn't intended to be taken quite literally.
But Franklin was not stating something original, either. Very similar statements had been made by others prior to Franklin before his time, back to John Locke and others.
"Leave it to Slashdot commenters to provide free evidence for the study!"
Two very big indicators -- the title and the very first, opening sentence of the abstract -- very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased:
"NASA faked the moon landing -- Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
Even among hardcore "conspiracy theorists", disbelieving in the moon landing is a rather extreme view. The immediate impression I get is that this isn't about correlations with "conspiracy theory" at all, but with extreme conspiracy theory. Which weakens their argument a good deal.
Extreme conspiracy theories of the kind mentioned ("The CIA killed Martin Luther King, Jr." and "NASA faked the moon landing" are not representative of conspiracies or conspiracy theories in general. Real conspiracies can and do happen. If you don't "subscribe" to at least "one or more" of the less extreme conspiracy theories that are out there, you are probably not a very rational person.
Then there is the first sentence of the abstract:
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate..."
The very first sentence of the paper is demonstrably false, and indicates a lack of understanding of the very science they cite. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the paper.
Last but far from least, their "study" was actually a survey of a self-selecting segment of the population that represents only a very tiny percentage of the total, and not at all likely to be representative. To anyone who ever studied statistics in school, that should be a giant red flag.
"If you're not willing to walk away without a sal/purchase, you're not actually negotiating."
Again, that's not the same thing. Of course you must be willing to walk away if you are negotiating.
But even according to U.S. courts, "take it or leave it" is not "negotiation". Your argument only applies *IF* you are negotiating. But a fixed price with no wiggle room doesn't qualify.
"V Comparatives and other independent testers (e.g. CNet, PCMag, etc.) show NIS at the top in terms of detection, removal, low-system resource utilization, etc. "
They also know which side of their bread the butter is on.
"Norton" brand software products started going downhill the moment Peter Norton sold his interest to Symantec. I watched it happen. It got gradually but steadily worse. The last "Norton Suite" I ever used (years ago) installed so many resident programs and other JUNK that my system slowed to a crawl, and did not supply enough configurability for me to just run those that I wanted.
I reamed every last trace of Symantec software off my hard drive, and never went back. And never regretted it.
"All the complainers are going to have used their own knowledge of someone's desires to benefit themselves sometime in their life, and they'll still remain self-righteous and indignant."
But it's not the same thing.
I can use my knowledge of someone else's desire in a negotiation. And I might come out ahead thereby. But it's not the same thing. That is negotiation. This scheme is not. They give you a price, and that's it. You aren't negotiating, and you can't talk it down. It's take-it-or-leave-it.
Scientists know -- and have been saying -- that DNA is far weaker evidence than prosecutors have tried to paint for the last few decades. But really more to the point: even if a conviction were made, it is not worth the loss of freedom and potential abuse this procedure involves.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
Actually, according to an article I read about 6 months ago, the vacuum-welding that people have been predicting for many decades just basically doesn't happen. Very rarely, if at all. As far as I know nobody has managed to explain why.
I was thinking the same thing. There are lots of locking toggle-type fasteners that could probably take the place of most external bolts on something like the ISS. In general, even compared to ideal conditions involving bolts, they can be much easier to install and remove. I think they would even be easier to machine into the parts.
"Just thinking out loud here: how many bolts does it take to hold down the power unit in the first place?"
Skimming the responses, it seems nobody ever answered your original question.
The panel was only supposed to be affixed by two bolts. Thus the problem.
"The very idea of an anonymous country-less virtual currency screams 'rob me'."
Please explain to me how it screams "rob me" any more than cash or other valuables.
The "country-less" nature of it is completely irrelevant. Platinum and other trade goods are country-less too, yet they have demonstrable value.