Your arguments are completely invalid. We're having a entirely different conversation. This doesnt have a damn thing to do with whether it is or would have been a good idea to put a halt to all gulf drilling. It has to do with lying and missrepresenting the findings of a panel because you wish their findings had been different.
Unless you're suggesting that the people said the cause of the Airbus problems were 'X', and a report was filed by the government recommending that Airbus fix 'Y' instead, then you're obviously not able to keep up with a simple conversation.
"Well, the panel found that a faulty relay in the airconditioning controls had a catastrophic event and was the root of the fire. But we're telling you that the panel recommended that Boeing overhaul toilet flush procedures."
Sorry, that quote block blew up. Your quote was :
"Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me."
I understood what you said perfectly. And I quote:
Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.
Regardless of what some Climate scientists will tell you, there's no 'value added' in purposefully manipulating data to show what you want the data to show. There's nothing in the Scientific Method that suggests that it's ok to swap the statements of panel around to make it appear as though they are recommending something they are not.
There's nothing shady about making your case based on scientific analysis. There's nothing wrong with taking the information provided by a group and pleading your case using that as evidence. There's something very wrong, however, in making it appear as though the people you used evidence from made the recommendations that you are trying to make for yourself when they did nothing of the sort.
It doesn't really matter at all if you agree with the White House conclusions or not. If the means is lies and deceit then the ends are inherently suspect. If you cant make your case out in the open then maybe you should re-evaluate how valid your position actually is. Unfortunately this line of reasoning is becoming less and less common in acedemia.
While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy."
So your argument can be boiled down to:
"It's too hard for me to spend 10-20 minutes preparing meals that dont even need refrigeration or cooking that I can easily carry with me and eat throughout the day. Especially considering that doing so would save me money. I'm so fucking lazy that I need the government to force private business to give me healthy fast food so that I can be healthy while being lazy... "
How about we target the people who should be ridiculed and condemned? How about we publicly shame the morons that allow irresponsible materials -including inordinant amounts of twinkies and hoho's- to be put into children's hands? THE IDIOT PARENTS that cant be bothered to read what they put into their kids hands, or regulate what their kids eat, or research appropriate diet and exercise.
If it takes a state law banning toys in Happy Meals to help make kids healthier then we're already completely fucked, because obviously the bulk of parents arent even remotely qualified to be parents.
Actually it wasnt an implicit concession at all. The only concession I made was that in the greater political stage this is a minor infraction. My statement was sarcasm playing on your obvious preconceptions. I've made no indication at all here about my political beliefs other than that being lied to by politicians pisses me off.
Could you point to the mission statement for/. stating that it's meant to deal only in technology news? I'd also love to see the information that suggests nerds have no concern for their governments deceptions.
A quick look around shows that this story isnt on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or CBS, or igoogle feeds, or Yahoo,... Guess it's a damn good thing someone linked it here or I might not have seen it.
You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.
Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.
Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.
I actually found CivIII to be the most annoying of the franchise. I just couldn't get into it at all. Civ II and IV, while having some failing points, are superior to III IMO.
As a follow-up; Does anyone else find it odd that a bunch of environmental activists really want the general public to shut up and fall into step with a life-long politician?
I understand the concept fully. Here's one for you to try to wrap your head around: If someone tells me the sky is falling because they have data that says so, I want to see the fucking data. If you tell me, "Oh well, we have it, but yeah, just trust me... oh shit, sorry, deleted it", my response is going to be to tell you to eat shit.
Here's another one:
I have a really fucking hard time swallowing the bait hook, line and sinker, when the fucking salesman (GORE) stands to become a multi-billionaire if I do. How is it that the poster child for climate change is the same person who happens to have built a corporation on selling carbon credits, and the whole climate change establishment just bent over and said "yeah, no conflict of interest there!". The whole damn thing smells fishy as hell, and you're pissed because I won't shut up and be your little lamb to slaughter.
I've never heard anyone say that we shouldn't reduce our polutants. I am not of the opinion that we should stop investigating climate change all-together. But I'm damn tired of people telling me I cant eat beef, or have fucking dog as a pet because it'll increase my carbon footprint. I'm all for cutting back and finding cleaner energy. But it's asinine to uproot the entire economy and trash businesses from fossil fuel to manufacturing to sheep farms overnight because a group of scientists that any brain-dead moron can tell are damn cozy with one another say so. Particularly when they are hostile and decietful, and happen to get filthy fucking rich in the process.
Let's run down the 'extreme' positions I've put forth that don't cover the 'other possible stance'...
--- There should be as little interference in our lives by officers as possible while still maintaining order.
--- You should never submit to an unlawful order from a cop.
--- You should pursue justice against bad cops.
--- You should respect the authority of an officer who is performing his legal obligations, upon which you rely.
--- You should consider the difficult and deadly situation that cops find themselves in every day and weigh that against your initial behavior toward them.
--- You do not have a 'civil right' to be 'as big a dick as you want' to the police and not get arrested.
--- You are undermining the authority of officers to perform their duties when you speak of them collectively as criminals and make claims that they are rapists, murderers and theives.
Yeah man! I'm CRRRAAAZZZY! Extreme whacko right here, pal! Stand back, there's no telling what nutso thing is going to come out next !!
The denialists have nothing because the people with the data REFUSE TO DISCLOSE IT. And then they tell everyone, "Oopsy! I know you asked for that data, but we kinda accidently sorta deleted it. But trust us, it proved our case so the debate is over!"
And this is precisely how the debate becomes "settled". You silence them. You don't address their concerns. You tell everyone they are a troll, and bury their comments, and once you've muted them sufficiently you tell everyone that there isnt any dissent.
I absolutely agree. You would collect all the data, allow it to be peer reviewed, you would welcome discussion and you would foster an atmosphere of investigation and cooperation.
You would NOT tell everyone that doesn't believe the Earth's crust was disintigrating to STFU and tell everyone that the debate on the solution to potholes was over.
And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?
Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.
Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.
Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so
Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:
If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?
Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.
Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":
Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer
Furthermore, being a brilliant at any subject doesn't inherently suggest that you're capable of generating sound statistical analysis of it (unless you're brilliant with statistics). Nor that you're capable of removing your own personal bias or preconceptions from your conclusions.
A half-wit farmboy from Wyoming could probably tell you that....
(Nothing against farmboys, or Wyomingites. Or half-wits for that matter.)
[quote]It's like throwing out evolution allegedly because of minor inconsistencies we haven't been able to explain yet, or like concluding that since there are still potholes despite us paying tax, taxes are evil and must be reduced.[/quote]
Or, perhaps one could say that potholes are an on-going situation that must be dealt with. You know that every year there will be more potholes. You know that you're going to have to repair the potholes, and you're going to have to generate tax revenue to do so. You might not know where exactly the potholes will be, and you might not know how many exactly you'll have to repair, so the cost to deal with it will fluctuate with a degree of uncertainty.
You wouldn't suggest that because there were more pothole repairs in the last decade that it points to a pattern of disintigration of the Earth's crust which is going to kill us all if we don't ban assphalt.
So, its easier to believe that there is a global pattern of knowingly killing a planet that has supported life for billions of years in order to become wealthy by putting a gas in the air that is required for plant life, than it is to believe that the same planet that's been around for billions of years might continue its on-going patterns of warming and cooling?
Which conspiracy theorists are you refering to, exactly?
[quote]The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same.[/quote]
That's a brilliant circle of logic.
There aren't any peer-reviewed publications because those who control the publications wont publish dissenting opinion, and you can prove there's no validity to the dissenting opinion by pointing to the lack of peer-reviewed publications....
Slashdot Mirror
Your arguments are completely invalid. We're having a entirely different conversation. This doesnt have a damn thing to do with whether it is or would have been a good idea to put a halt to all gulf drilling. It has to do with lying and missrepresenting the findings of a panel because you wish their findings had been different.
Unless you're suggesting that the people said the cause of the Airbus problems were 'X', and a report was filed by the government recommending that Airbus fix 'Y' instead, then you're obviously not able to keep up with a simple conversation.
"Well, the panel found that a faulty relay in the airconditioning controls had a catastrophic event and was the root of the fire. But we're telling you that the panel recommended that Boeing overhaul toilet flush procedures."
Sorry, that quote block blew up. Your quote was : "Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me."
Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.
Regardless of what some Climate scientists will tell you, there's no 'value added' in purposefully manipulating data to show what you want the data to show. There's nothing in the Scientific Method that suggests that it's ok to swap the statements of panel around to make it appear as though they are recommending something they are not.
There's nothing shady about making your case based on scientific analysis. There's nothing wrong with taking the information provided by a group and pleading your case using that as evidence. There's something very wrong, however, in making it appear as though the people you used evidence from made the recommendations that you are trying to make for yourself when they did nothing of the sort.
It doesn't really matter at all if you agree with the White House conclusions or not. If the means is lies and deceit then the ends are inherently suspect. If you cant make your case out in the open then maybe you should re-evaluate how valid your position actually is. Unfortunately this line of reasoning is becoming less and less common in acedemia.
Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.
The ends justify the means. It's all better now. Move along.
/end_sarcasm
Oh, so it's ok if your government blatantly lies to you and actively decieves you so long as you happen to agree with the goal.
While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy."
So your argument can be boiled down to: "It's too hard for me to spend 10-20 minutes preparing meals that dont even need refrigeration or cooking that I can easily carry with me and eat throughout the day. Especially considering that doing so would save me money. I'm so fucking lazy that I need the government to force private business to give me healthy fast food so that I can be healthy while being lazy... "
Who bought them the exercise and coloring books?
How about we target the people who should be ridiculed and condemned? How about we publicly shame the morons that allow irresponsible materials -including inordinant amounts of twinkies and hoho's- to be put into children's hands? THE IDIOT PARENTS that cant be bothered to read what they put into their kids hands, or regulate what their kids eat, or research appropriate diet and exercise.
If it takes a state law banning toys in Happy Meals to help make kids healthier then we're already completely fucked, because obviously the bulk of parents arent even remotely qualified to be parents.
I have no idea what you think my preconceptions are, or how they could be obvious to you when I didn't write the post that you were responding to.
Really?
But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either
You should probably report the fact that someone is spoofing your name and posting here...
Actually it wasnt an implicit concession at all. The only concession I made was that in the greater political stage this is a minor infraction. My statement was sarcasm playing on your obvious preconceptions. I've made no indication at all here about my political beliefs other than that being lied to by politicians pisses me off.
Could you point to the mission statement for /. stating that it's meant to deal only in technology news? I'd also love to see the information that suggests nerds have no concern for their governments deceptions.
... Guess it's a damn good thing someone linked it here or I might not have seen it.
A quick look around shows that this story isnt on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or ABC, or CBS, or igoogle feeds, or Yahoo,
You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.
Good plan. Stick you head in the sand and ignore it. I'm sure it'll all just go away...
Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.
Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.
I actually found CivIII to be the most annoying of the franchise. I just couldn't get into it at all. Civ II and IV, while having some failing points, are superior to III IMO.
As a follow-up; Does anyone else find it odd that a bunch of environmental activists really want the general public to shut up and fall into step with a life-long politician?
And I'm the one that's the idiot?
I understand the concept fully. Here's one for you to try to wrap your head around:
If someone tells me the sky is falling because they have data that says so, I want to see the fucking data. If you tell me, "Oh well, we have it, but yeah, just trust me... oh shit, sorry, deleted it", my response is going to be to tell you to eat shit.
Here's another one:
I have a really fucking hard time swallowing the bait hook, line and sinker, when the fucking salesman (GORE) stands to become a multi-billionaire if I do. How is it that the poster child for climate change is the same person who happens to have built a corporation on selling carbon credits, and the whole climate change establishment just bent over and said "yeah, no conflict of interest there!". The whole damn thing smells fishy as hell, and you're pissed because I won't shut up and be your little lamb to slaughter.
I've never heard anyone say that we shouldn't reduce our polutants. I am not of the opinion that we should stop investigating climate change all-together. But I'm damn tired of people telling me I cant eat beef, or have fucking dog as a pet because it'll increase my carbon footprint. I'm all for cutting back and finding cleaner energy. But it's asinine to uproot the entire economy and trash businesses from fossil fuel to manufacturing to sheep farms overnight because a group of scientists that any brain-dead moron can tell are damn cozy with one another say so. Particularly when they are hostile and decietful, and happen to get filthy fucking rich in the process.
Let's run down the 'extreme' positions I've put forth that don't cover the 'other possible stance'...
--- There should be as little interference in our lives by officers as possible while still maintaining order.
--- You should never submit to an unlawful order from a cop.
--- You should pursue justice against bad cops.
--- You should respect the authority of an officer who is performing his legal obligations, upon which you rely.
--- You should consider the difficult and deadly situation that cops find themselves in every day and weigh that against your initial behavior toward them.
--- You do not have a 'civil right' to be 'as big a dick as you want' to the police and not get arrested.
--- You are undermining the authority of officers to perform their duties when you speak of them collectively as criminals and make claims that they are rapists, murderers and theives.
Yeah man! I'm CRRRAAAZZZY! Extreme whacko right here, pal! Stand back, there's no telling what nutso thing is going to come out next !!
The denialists have nothing because the people with the data REFUSE TO DISCLOSE IT. And then they tell everyone, "Oopsy! I know you asked for that data, but we kinda accidently sorta deleted it. But trust us, it proved our case so the debate is over!"
Troll. Classic.
And this is precisely how the debate becomes "settled". You silence them. You don't address their concerns. You tell everyone they are a troll, and bury their comments, and once you've muted them sufficiently you tell everyone that there isnt any dissent.
I absolutely agree. You would collect all the data, allow it to be peer reviewed, you would welcome discussion and you would foster an atmosphere of investigation and cooperation.
You would NOT tell everyone that doesn't believe the Earth's crust was disintigrating to STFU and tell everyone that the debate on the solution to potholes was over.
And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?
Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.
Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.
Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so
Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:
If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?
Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.
Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":
Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer
Another case of intimidation
Here's an aricle about a man whose career in television as a science journalist ended because of his beliefs about global warming
Here's a Senate report about a climatologist calling for the scientific certifications of skeptics to be revoked:
So yeah... There's no evidence of intimidation or ignoring the legitimate dissent....
Nicely put.
Furthermore, being a brilliant at any subject doesn't inherently suggest that you're capable of generating sound statistical analysis of it (unless you're brilliant with statistics). Nor that you're capable of removing your own personal bias or preconceptions from your conclusions.
A half-wit farmboy from Wyoming could probably tell you that....
(Nothing against farmboys, or Wyomingites. Or half-wits for that matter.)
[quote]It's like throwing out evolution allegedly because of minor inconsistencies we haven't been able to explain yet, or like concluding that since there are still potholes despite us paying tax, taxes are evil and must be reduced.[/quote]
Or, perhaps one could say that potholes are an on-going situation that must be dealt with. You know that every year there will be more potholes. You know that you're going to have to repair the potholes, and you're going to have to generate tax revenue to do so. You might not know where exactly the potholes will be, and you might not know how many exactly you'll have to repair, so the cost to deal with it will fluctuate with a degree of uncertainty.
You wouldn't suggest that because there were more pothole repairs in the last decade that it points to a pattern of disintigration of the Earth's crust which is going to kill us all if we don't ban assphalt.
So, its easier to believe that there is a global pattern of knowingly killing a planet that has supported life for billions of years in order to become wealthy by putting a gas in the air that is required for plant life, than it is to believe that the same planet that's been around for billions of years might continue its on-going patterns of warming and cooling?
Which conspiracy theorists are you refering to, exactly?
[quote]The more respected global warming papers have been published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. Point out any global warming denialist papers that have done the same.[/quote] That's a brilliant circle of logic.
There aren't any peer-reviewed publications because those who control the publications wont publish dissenting opinion, and you can prove there's no validity to the dissenting opinion by pointing to the lack of peer-reviewed publications....