Not really, most of them will probably be companies you never would have heard of otherwise. This is probably going to work on the same principle as spam. They'll post a million shill messages and if they sell 4 of the product, it'll be consider a "success".
The guy is nothing but another mass trolling pig. Doesn't give a crap about people's social interactions, quite happy to bring them all crashing down, basically he wants to become a social forum spammer and that's what the arse hole is selling to corporations.
The world you're looking for is capitalist or "job creator" if you're Republican. This is practically the history of corporations. Find a new untapped resource and spoil it for everyone else by monetising it in the filthiest way possible until the "evil government" steps in to protect people from the "upstanding businessman" who is "creating wealth".
I fully agree with you, Facebook and Twitter will be entering a war with companies like this if they know what's good for them. This is really no different from the endless SEO war that is waged against Google's search engine. There are always people willing to ruin it for everyone else so they can personally benefit.
Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I have come to see how much good certain religions have done for humanity, and I see how little atheists have to offer that would do the same.
Then you remain profoundly ignorant. Christianity is not much different from Islam and once the Islamic caliphates were the centre of learning and advancement in the world. It wasn't until the rise of fundamentalist Islam that Christian nations surpassed the Islamic ones because of deliberate repression of science and education. In any case, most of the progress of science and technology is a history of atheists, agnostics, and the marginally or minimally religious. True believers rarely invent new things because they are too concerned with making sure everyone else believes what they do. Religion does have a good side but it also has very dangerous bad side. Just look at all the fools who commented above about how it's perfectly ok to murder innocent children because somebody did something God didn't like (but nonetheless forced him into doing). That's plainly evil to anyone who isn't so besotted with Christianity that they can't think straight.
There's a certain part of the brain responsible for emotions. If this is damaged, it leaves the rational part of the brain in charge. The result? Such patients are paralyzed by the array of options we face each moment, and are unable to properly analyze their choices- and hence do little at all.
And patients who have had the rational part of their brain damaged may sit and howl at the wall while endlessly giggling for the rest of their lives. They also incapable of performing any normal task either. The moral of story? Brain damage makes it hard to live a normal life. Or if you prefer you could listen to Rush's Hemispheres for the same obvious lesson.
Both atheists and Christians have made important contributions to the world, by picking sides you're being exactly what you claim to hate.
The creation story is probably newer or unrelated to the Cain and Abel stories. You can kind of see in the Bible how the Jewish god wasn't the only god until much later. There are hints in the old testament that Jewish god killed or murdered the other gods. Somewhere along the line that seems to have morphed into the modern day conviction that there has only ever been one god.
There are other options, I'd expand the list to at least: Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Lies or Legend
a) Lies - Jesus may never have existed. The circumstantial evidence for this is reasonable. The books of his life were written starting almost a century after his supposed death, that's enough time for anyone who could have contradicted the events to have died. He might be a composite of several different holy men or the entire story may have been invented for the purpose of starting a religion. It would be no different than the invention of Zeus or Hercules.
b) Legend - There might have been a real Jesus, but the stories attributed to him have been exaggerated, touched up, made up and otherwise have little to do with actual events. There is evidence that the Jesus in the different books of the Bible is not exactly the same person. Each author seems to have a different measure of the man. For instance, most of the love and peace stuff seems to have been added by Paul according to some actual biblical scholars (of which I am not).
One of the more interesting views was that Jesus was essentially a fire and brimstone preacher of a Judaic doomsday cult. He was charismatic and utterly wrong in everything he predicted but, of course, that would be no obstacles to a century of rumours and cognitive bias. This comes through in a few places, like where he predicts that everyone in attendance will live to see the end of world.
There are probably possibilities beyond those 5 to consider as well.
In reality, I suspect rmstar respects the philosophy of Paul, rather than Jesus.
Looks I was right. His account was most likely compromised because it was on Hotmail and it most likely had nothing to do with his password or using it on multiple services. No matter how unique or secure the password it can't protect against system wide vulnerabilities.
"We are made out of the most common elements in the universe. Only the height of arrogance would say that life couldn't happen anywhere but here".
It's not arrogance to say that you should only believe in the existence of something if there's evidence for it.
Otherwise it's just a form of religious faith.
Dr. Tyson isn't saying you should believe that there is any specific life out there. He's saying you shouldn't believe that there is no life out there. Any reasonable, sceptical, person has to acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance that life exists on other planets. Accepting the possibility that other life may actually exist is fundamentally different from firmly believing it exists. To continue you religious analogy: Dr. Tyson seems to be saying we should be extraterrestrial life agnostics until we get better information.
Using the same password for all your accounts is a risk. Deal with it.
Well, I can agree to that.
However, you have to agree that the rest is speculation, while it could have been another site, there is no actual evidence to suggest that it was. Suggesting that the editor might be hiding information that would indicate otherwise, is, at best, a reach. It's possible, but it seems more like wishful thinking for the way things should be.
Actually, most likely is his account was compromised on Hotmail. You're speculating, and there is absolutely no evidence to support your speculation. While it's not a possibility that can be definitively ruled out, it looks like wishful thinking. It certainly does not pass Occam's Razor.
You deserved to be slapped upside the head for that. I think most people would expect the hackers to actually attack the service that they want to hack, rather than attacking a unrelated service in the hopes that the other, unrelated, service might have the same username and password as hotmail. In particular, the morons who say "maybe Gmail was hacked" sound like moronic Microsoft sycophants. Any rational person would expect the spam email to sent from Gmail instead of Hotmail if Gmail was the service hacked. Really, how brainless can you make your objections?
Since there is no evidence of hacking activity on any of his other accounts, it seems most probable that Hotmail was the target and the weak link. Occam's Razor. Learn to use it.
I'm sorry that you don't understand and refuse to listen. You've failed to do anything but cling dogmatically to your obviously false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.
I've cited numerous examples to support my stance. You've cited none
Everything you've cited is irrelevant to your case. What you've shown are examples of people questioning new discoveries and refusing to believe something until evidence to support it is provided. This is proper scientific scepticism, and is exactly how the scientific consensus works. It always lags the bleeding edge of science. Everything you've cited actually supports the arguments I've made.
Frankly, you have an absurdly reductionist view of science, with nearly 6 million people engaged in scientific research world wide (2006 OECD estimate) you can't help but have a consensus in each field. The consensus isn't perfect, but it is the best representation of what we have learned through application of the scientific method. There are plenty of people who are convinced the consensus is wrong about something, however, they need to make the case in writing with evidence to back it up. That is how we keep the time cubers, flat earthers, vaccine deniers, and other assorted loons from polluting what we know with what they wish was true. When there's enough evidence that can be independently verified and reproduced, then the consensus advances. Without independent verification and reproducibility, it's not science, it's wild claims.
You must've looked really hard to find a document that apparently was published 15 years ago!
Actually, it was the first PDF linked in the "climate change" section of their wikipedia article, and it was still on their web site as recently as 2008.
Even so, not even an old document supports your claim:
Regardless of it's age, point 2 on page 2 says:
2. The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.
Which is, of course, false and it was known to be false in 1995 and 2008, but it proves exactly what I've said. It's fairly amazing that you skipped the obvious quote on page 2 that proves the case I'm making to reach for straws with a part of a sentence on page 14. Do you always practice such selective reasoning or are you trolling?
Something called "the Scientific Method":) There's no need for agreement whatsoever, and it has absolutely no place in science.
You don't seem to understand the difference between procedure and knowledge. The scientific method is the process, scientific consensus is the product.
As far as I know, no one argues global warming isn't happening.
Which is a strange statement to make since that's exactly what the Heartland Institute says and pays other people to say for them.
No, hypotheses that withstands tests over time do not rely on people _wanting_ them to be true or _believing_ in them - which are words used together with "consensus"
Merriam-webster's definition of consensus: general agreement
If you don't have a general agreement on what is true and what is not, how do you tell what is true?
It's completely irrelevant and the concept of a consensus brings nothing to the scientific table.
The scientific consensus (what is generally accepted as true) is the feedback loop that allows science to progress.
As far as I know, it's only used by conservative scientists who want to dismiss scientific challenges (see the links I posted).
And those scientists were actually doing their proper job which was to be sceptical of new claims. When the scientists provide compelling evidence, the new theory is admitted into the consensus. The scientific consensus is the body of science.
Regarding the Heartland Institue, their total budget and the payouts according to fakegate won't even get you a cup of coffee in a big university. Thus it's proved conclusively that they (at least) do not operate a "denial machine" (your words).
That's specious logic. First, I'm not aware of any big university that has only a single climate science faculty. Second, when presented with evidence that the Heartland Institute (among other similar organisations) pays people to argue that global warming isn't happening, you choose to say they're probably not paying them enough so it doesn't count? It looks like you're in denial. I suggest you try reading Merchants of Doubt or "Don't Get Fooled Again: The Sceptic's Guide to Life " by Richard Wilson. The media loves stories with conflict, they bring in more product to sell to their advertisers, so it doesn't take much to get them to promote the "controversy" angle. That's before we consider media bias and outright distortions on the issue itself.
Didn't fakegate prove once and for all that there's no real money being paid out by Heartland?
No, it proved the opposite. The Heartland Institute doesn't deny that the parts about who they're paying and how much are accurate, and most, if not all, of them have been verified.
The rest of your post consists mostly of ad hominems
I don't think those words means what you think they mean. I gave you a particular example that disproves your thesis that people who don't agree with the consensus are shut out. I also explained to you why some people are legitimately labelled deniers.
consensus it simply has no place in science
Absolutely wrong. Experiments and hypotheses are the bones of science, consensus is the muscle. Without both science can't go anywhere.
hypotheses that has withstood falsifications over time.
Which, would be the scientific consensus. Consensus is the feedback loop which allows science to progress. If you don't a consensus on which hypotheses have or haven't been disproved you'd have to personally verify every single one yourself. That would probably take more than a lifetime of work in almost any field before you could get to the point where you could even start working on something new.
I think you're conflating different ideas together. Or perhaps you'd like to demonstrate how a scientific consensus can "become the norm without having to be anywhere close to fact". There's a myth put out by people who don't have any evidence to back them up, that "they are hiding it from you". You see it's not that the person trying to convince you that their insane theories are right is, in fact, insane. No, everyone secretly agrees with him, but everyone is too afraid of what "they" will do.
Most often we see this line of argument used by intelligent design advocates and the climate change denial machine. However, real scientists who don't accept the consensus on climate change (like Lindzen) are still able to publish regularly despite their contrarian positions (Lindzen still thinks the science linking smoking and cancer isn't settled). The problem is there just aren't that many people who can keep publishing new material when it gets proven wrong over and over again. The people who get labelled as deniers get labelled deniers because at some point it becomes obvious that they can not change their minds. Often in climate science this is because their jobs depend on denying the evidence. For many of the pundits they are literally paid by the Heartland Institute to deny climate change, and their public appearance fees depend on presenting a pre-determined view. They in too deep and no longer have the option to change their position.
In short, thinking that "consensus" has nothing to with science is foolishness. The scientific consensus is the giant on whose shoulder every scientist perches. Without consensus, every scientist would have to work from first principles and we'd never progress any further than what could be discovered in one lifetime.
You have an interesting idea, but it has a jaw-dropping problem. The terrorists who hijacked the 9/11 planes probably would have signed up for this program. Imagine for a moment that the people who are supposed to be protecting the plane from hijackers are the people with the guns. Those hijackers took flying lessons so they could learn how to crash the planes into their designated targets. You don't think they'd "volunteer" for a program that lets them legitimately carry weapons on to a plane? Then there's the loonies like McVeigh and Breivik who also likely sign up for such a program who aren't affiliated with a terrorist group.
I think there's been exactly one improvement to airline security since 9/11: Reinforced cockpit doors that lock from the inside. If you can't replace the pilots you can't use the plane as a missile. Obviously, not including the change in passenger attitude toward hijackings, even though that does make the plane more secure.
Why does the denying side have to disprove the theory?
Because there is sufficient evidence to convince any reasonable person that the AGW theory is correct. It therefore falls on the people who don't accept the consensus view to show why the consensus is wrong.
I would say if the AGW supporters have such definitive evidence, then why are there any deniers at all?
Mostly economic or philosophical disagreements. Back in the 30s, the Germans published a book criticising general relativity with (supposedly) 100 authors who criticised relativity. Everything you claim about climate change could have been claimed about relativity 80 years ago.
If you want evidence, start waiting because we won't find out the results of our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere experiment for a few thousand more years.
Actually, we can already see the evidence. The world is warmer than it has been since the industrial revolution started, ocean acidity is increasing, ocean levels are rising, glaciers are melting, Arctic ice extent and volume is at record lows opening new shipping routes, plant and animal species are shifting northward and to higher latitudes. Analysis of radioactive isotopes in the carbon dioxide in the air confirms that the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is increasing. I could go on and on but why don't you read up a little bit on it, first.
Richard Lindzen is one of the few legitimate scientists with actual experience in climatology and he doesn't seem to have any problems publishing his papers that question the consensus view of climate change. Most of the so called "censorship" that climate change critics complain about is hypothetical. They think that if they did write something then it wouldn't get published. It's really an excuse for why they usually can't point to any journal articles that support their position. Personally, I think it's a way to cover up the fact that most of people who criticise global warming actually aren't scientists, have no relevant experience, and are instead basing their opposition on their "gut feelings" or pay checks. You're suppose to come away thinking that there are amazing papers that are being hidden away from you. It's a ridiculous argument, you can't hide this type of stuff in the Internet age, yet somehow the very same web sites that claim this censorship is happening don't have any good examples of papers that were censored. How is that even possible, let alone probable?
The thing you should remember about the aphorism about science advancing one funeral at a time, is that it can cut both ways. What if the people opposed to climate change are the "stubborn and petty" ones? After all, the letter in question was signed by 49 retired engineers, astronauts, and administrators. As a side note: NASA currently employs around 16,000, I wouldn't be surprised if there more than 50,000 former NASA employees. That would put these guys at around 0.1% of the potential group, how hard do you think it would be to find 49 former NASA employees to write a letter with the exact opposite message? Furthermore, none of these guys have experience in the field they are criticising. The closest is the one guy who worked as a TV weatherman for a few years.
It's actually about 72 times over the first 20 years, and declines to 7.6 times over 500 years. 72 is not good, but you also have to figure the relative amount of emissions and the lifetime in the atmosphere. About 12 years in methane will degrade to become CO2. Now if we are emitting a thousand times more CO2 than Methane, then it should be clear that CO2 which can last for thousands of years in the atmosphere is a bigger problem. By the way, we've increased methane levels by approximately 1 part per million over the last 250 years, while we've increased CO2 by 114 parts per million.
So ask yourself what's bigger, 72 or 114. And that's the short term effect. The long term is 7.6 or 114. Lastly it doesn't look like Methane emissions are climbing very much. Looking at the U.S. EPA Chart shows that Methane emissions have grown almost 2% over the last 30 years.
You need to look at the big picture, in a triage situation you address the biggest and easiest to control problem first, and in this case it's CO2 emissions, which are 1.5 times worse over the next 15 years and about 15 times worse over the long run.
He's not questioning the powers that be, he was paid to produce "research" that questioned vaccines so that he and his partners could profit off of lawsuits based on that "research". His "research studies" included children he'd never even met, children who apparently don't exist, children he claimed had autism that don't have it, and other egregious errors indicative of fraud.
He gets attacked because he sold his professional credibility for the chance to cash in on a lawsuit. He stood to make millions of dollars and endangered the life of countless children to line his own pockets. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of children and it doesn't seem to affect him at all. I don't know whether he's in deep denial or a sociopath, but there is something deeply wrong with Andrew Wakefield.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, most of them will probably be companies you never would have heard of otherwise. This is probably going to work on the same principle as spam. They'll post a million shill messages and if they sell 4 of the product, it'll be consider a "success".
The guy is nothing but another mass trolling pig. Doesn't give a crap about people's social interactions, quite happy to bring them all crashing down, basically he wants to become a social forum spammer and that's what the arse hole is selling to corporations.
The world you're looking for is capitalist or "job creator" if you're Republican. This is practically the history of corporations. Find a new untapped resource and spoil it for everyone else by monetising it in the filthiest way possible until the "evil government" steps in to protect people from the "upstanding businessman" who is "creating wealth".
I fully agree with you, Facebook and Twitter will be entering a war with companies like this if they know what's good for them. This is really no different from the endless SEO war that is waged against Google's search engine. There are always people willing to ruin it for everyone else so they can personally benefit.
Now, I'm not much of a Christian. I have come to see how much good certain religions have done for humanity, and I see how little atheists have to offer that would do the same.
Then you remain profoundly ignorant. Christianity is not much different from Islam and once the Islamic caliphates were the centre of learning and advancement in the world. It wasn't until the rise of fundamentalist Islam that Christian nations surpassed the Islamic ones because of deliberate repression of science and education. In any case, most of the progress of science and technology is a history of atheists, agnostics, and the marginally or minimally religious. True believers rarely invent new things because they are too concerned with making sure everyone else believes what they do. Religion does have a good side but it also has very dangerous bad side. Just look at all the fools who commented above about how it's perfectly ok to murder innocent children because somebody did something God didn't like (but nonetheless forced him into doing). That's plainly evil to anyone who isn't so besotted with Christianity that they can't think straight.
There's a certain part of the brain responsible for emotions. If this is damaged, it leaves the rational part of the brain in charge. The result? Such patients are paralyzed by the array of options we face each moment, and are unable to properly analyze their choices- and hence do little at all.
And patients who have had the rational part of their brain damaged may sit and howl at the wall while endlessly giggling for the rest of their lives. They also incapable of performing any normal task either. The moral of story? Brain damage makes it hard to live a normal life. Or if you prefer you could listen to Rush's Hemispheres for the same obvious lesson.
Both atheists and Christians have made important contributions to the world, by picking sides you're being exactly what you claim to hate.
The creation story is probably newer or unrelated to the Cain and Abel stories. You can kind of see in the Bible how the Jewish god wasn't the only god until much later. There are hints in the old testament that Jewish god killed or murdered the other gods. Somewhere along the line that seems to have morphed into the modern day conviction that there has only ever been one god.
There are other options, I'd expand the list to at least:
Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Lies or Legend
a) Lies - Jesus may never have existed. The circumstantial evidence for this is reasonable. The books of his life were written starting almost a century after his supposed death, that's enough time for anyone who could have contradicted the events to have died. He might be a composite of several different holy men or the entire story may have been invented for the purpose of starting a religion. It would be no different than the invention of Zeus or Hercules.
b) Legend - There might have been a real Jesus, but the stories attributed to him have been exaggerated, touched up, made up and otherwise have little to do with actual events. There is evidence that the Jesus in the different books of the Bible is not exactly the same person. Each author seems to have a different measure of the man. For instance, most of the love and peace stuff seems to have been added by Paul according to some actual biblical scholars (of which I am not).
One of the more interesting views was that Jesus was essentially a fire and brimstone preacher of a Judaic doomsday cult. He was charismatic and utterly wrong in everything he predicted but, of course, that would be no obstacles to a century of rumours and cognitive bias. This comes through in a few places, like where he predicts that everyone in attendance will live to see the end of world.
There are probably possibilities beyond those 5 to consider as well.
In reality, I suspect rmstar respects the philosophy of Paul, rather than Jesus.
Even more likely the PCpro guy reset his password and simply didn't mention that step.
Because hacking hotmail is ridiculously easy?
Looks I was right. His account was most likely compromised because it was on Hotmail and it most likely had nothing to do with his password or using it on multiple services. No matter how unique or secure the password it can't protect against system wide vulnerabilities.
"We are made out of the most common elements in the universe. Only the height of arrogance would say that life couldn't happen anywhere but here".
It's not arrogance to say that you should only believe in the existence of something if there's evidence for it.
Otherwise it's just a form of religious faith.
Dr. Tyson isn't saying you should believe that there is any specific life out there. He's saying you shouldn't believe that there is no life out there. Any reasonable, sceptical, person has to acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance that life exists on other planets. Accepting the possibility that other life may actually exist is fundamentally different from firmly believing it exists. To continue you religious analogy: Dr. Tyson seems to be saying we should be extraterrestrial life agnostics until we get better information.
Using the same password for all your accounts is a risk. Deal with it.
Well, I can agree to that.
However, you have to agree that the rest is speculation, while it could have been another site, there is no actual evidence to suggest that it was. Suggesting that the editor might be hiding information that would indicate otherwise, is, at best, a reach. It's possible, but it seems more like wishful thinking for the way things should be.
Actually, most likely is his account was compromised on Hotmail. You're speculating, and there is absolutely no evidence to support your speculation. While it's not a possibility that can be definitively ruled out, it looks like wishful thinking. It certainly does not pass Occam's Razor.
You deserved to be slapped upside the head for that. I think most people would expect the hackers to actually attack the service that they want to hack, rather than attacking a unrelated service in the hopes that the other, unrelated, service might have the same username and password as hotmail. In particular, the morons who say "maybe Gmail was hacked" sound like moronic Microsoft sycophants. Any rational person would expect the spam email to sent from Gmail instead of Hotmail if Gmail was the service hacked. Really, how brainless can you make your objections?
Since there is no evidence of hacking activity on any of his other accounts, it seems most probable that Hotmail was the target and the weak link. Occam's Razor. Learn to use it.
I'm sorry that you don't understand and refuse to listen. You've failed to do anything but cling dogmatically to your obviously false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.
I've cited numerous examples to support my stance. You've cited none
Everything you've cited is irrelevant to your case. What you've shown are examples of people questioning new discoveries and refusing to believe something until evidence to support it is provided. This is proper scientific scepticism, and is exactly how the scientific consensus works. It always lags the bleeding edge of science. Everything you've cited actually supports the arguments I've made.
Frankly, you have an absurdly reductionist view of science, with nearly 6 million people engaged in scientific research world wide (2006 OECD estimate) you can't help but have a consensus in each field. The consensus isn't perfect, but it is the best representation of what we have learned through application of the scientific method. There are plenty of people who are convinced the consensus is wrong about something, however, they need to make the case in writing with evidence to back it up. That is how we keep the time cubers, flat earthers, vaccine deniers, and other assorted loons from polluting what we know with what they wish was true. When there's enough evidence that can be independently verified and reproduced, then the consensus advances. Without independent verification and reproducibility, it's not science, it's wild claims.
You must've looked really hard to find a document that apparently was published 15 years ago!
Actually, it was the first PDF linked in the "climate change" section of their wikipedia article, and it was still on their web site as recently as 2008.
Even so, not even an old document supports your claim:
Regardless of it's age, point 2 on page 2 says:
Which is, of course, false and it was known to be false in 1995 and 2008, but it proves exactly what I've said. It's fairly amazing that you skipped the obvious quote on page 2 that proves the case I'm making to reach for straws with a part of a sentence on page 14. Do you always practice such selective reasoning or are you trolling?
You keep claiming that, but it's not true.
It's a shame you can't see how ridiculous your statements appear.
Really? Where do they (and others they pay pocket change) say that? I can't find it in any of their publications.
Here's one. You obviously didn't look very hard.
Something called "the Scientific Method" :) There's no need for agreement whatsoever, and it has absolutely no place in science.
You don't seem to understand the difference between procedure and knowledge. The scientific method is the process, scientific consensus is the product.
As far as I know, no one argues global warming isn't happening.
Which is a strange statement to make since that's exactly what the Heartland Institute says and pays other people to say for them.
No, hypotheses that withstands tests over time do not rely on people _wanting_ them to be true or _believing_ in them - which are words used together with "consensus"
Merriam-webster's definition of consensus: general agreement
If you don't have a general agreement on what is true and what is not, how do you tell what is true?
It's completely irrelevant and the concept of a consensus brings nothing to the scientific table.
The scientific consensus (what is generally accepted as true) is the feedback loop that allows science to progress.
As far as I know, it's only used by conservative scientists who want to dismiss scientific challenges (see the links I posted).
And those scientists were actually doing their proper job which was to be sceptical of new claims. When the scientists provide compelling evidence, the new theory is admitted into the consensus. The scientific consensus is the body of science.
Regarding the Heartland Institue, their total budget and the payouts according to fakegate won't even get you a cup of coffee in a big university. Thus it's proved conclusively that they (at least) do not operate a "denial machine" (your words).
That's specious logic. First, I'm not aware of any big university that has only a single climate science faculty. Second, when presented with evidence that the Heartland Institute (among other similar organisations) pays people to argue that global warming isn't happening, you choose to say they're probably not paying them enough so it doesn't count? It looks like you're in denial. I suggest you try reading Merchants of Doubt or "Don't Get Fooled Again: The Sceptic's Guide to Life " by Richard Wilson. The media loves stories with conflict, they bring in more product to sell to their advertisers, so it doesn't take much to get them to promote the "controversy" angle. That's before we consider media bias and outright distortions on the issue itself.
Didn't fakegate prove once and for all that there's no real money being paid out by Heartland?
No, it proved the opposite. The Heartland Institute doesn't deny that the parts about who they're paying and how much are accurate, and most, if not all, of them have been verified.
The rest of your post consists mostly of ad hominems
I don't think those words means what you think they mean. I gave you a particular example that disproves your thesis that people who don't agree with the consensus are shut out. I also explained to you why some people are legitimately labelled deniers.
consensus it simply has no place in science
Absolutely wrong. Experiments and hypotheses are the bones of science, consensus is the muscle. Without both science can't go anywhere.
hypotheses that has withstood falsifications over time.
Which, would be the scientific consensus. Consensus is the feedback loop which allows science to progress. If you don't a consensus on which hypotheses have or haven't been disproved you'd have to personally verify every single one yourself. That would probably take more than a lifetime of work in almost any field before you could get to the point where you could even start working on something new.
I think you're conflating different ideas together. Or perhaps you'd like to demonstrate how a scientific consensus can "become the norm without having to be anywhere close to fact". There's a myth put out by people who don't have any evidence to back them up, that "they are hiding it from you". You see it's not that the person trying to convince you that their insane theories are right is, in fact, insane. No, everyone secretly agrees with him, but everyone is too afraid of what "they" will do.
Most often we see this line of argument used by intelligent design advocates and the climate change denial machine. However, real scientists who don't accept the consensus on climate change (like Lindzen) are still able to publish regularly despite their contrarian positions (Lindzen still thinks the science linking smoking and cancer isn't settled). The problem is there just aren't that many people who can keep publishing new material when it gets proven wrong over and over again. The people who get labelled as deniers get labelled deniers because at some point it becomes obvious that they can not change their minds. Often in climate science this is because their jobs depend on denying the evidence. For many of the pundits they are literally paid by the Heartland Institute to deny climate change, and their public appearance fees depend on presenting a pre-determined view. They in too deep and no longer have the option to change their position.
In short, thinking that "consensus" has nothing to with science is foolishness. The scientific consensus is the giant on whose shoulder every scientist perches. Without consensus, every scientist would have to work from first principles and we'd never progress any further than what could be discovered in one lifetime.
You have an interesting idea, but it has a jaw-dropping problem. The terrorists who hijacked the 9/11 planes probably would have signed up for this program. Imagine for a moment that the people who are supposed to be protecting the plane from hijackers are the people with the guns. Those hijackers took flying lessons so they could learn how to crash the planes into their designated targets. You don't think they'd "volunteer" for a program that lets them legitimately carry weapons on to a plane? Then there's the loonies like McVeigh and Breivik who also likely sign up for such a program who aren't affiliated with a terrorist group.
I think there's been exactly one improvement to airline security since 9/11: Reinforced cockpit doors that lock from the inside. If you can't replace the pilots you can't use the plane as a missile. Obviously, not including the change in passenger attitude toward hijackings, even though that does make the plane more secure.
Just to be clear the price he's quoting is most likely $1 for 1 megabit per second for 1 month. So that's about $1 for around 316 gigabytes of data.
Yes they are, CO2 increased by about 20 ppm over the same time. So using math:
CO2 = 20 x 1 = 20
Methane = 0.050 x 72 = 3.6
It looks like CO2 is the bigger problem over the next decade.
Why does the denying side have to disprove the theory?
Because there is sufficient evidence to convince any reasonable person that the AGW theory is correct. It therefore falls on the people who don't accept the consensus view to show why the consensus is wrong.
I would say if the AGW supporters have such definitive evidence, then why are there any deniers at all?
Mostly economic or philosophical disagreements. Back in the 30s, the Germans published a book criticising general relativity with (supposedly) 100 authors who criticised relativity. Everything you claim about climate change could have been claimed about relativity 80 years ago.
If you want evidence, start waiting because we won't find out the results of our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere experiment for a few thousand more years.
Actually, we can already see the evidence. The world is warmer than it has been since the industrial revolution started, ocean acidity is increasing, ocean levels are rising, glaciers are melting, Arctic ice extent and volume is at record lows opening new shipping routes, plant and animal species are shifting northward and to higher latitudes. Analysis of radioactive isotopes in the carbon dioxide in the air confirms that the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is increasing. I could go on and on but why don't you read up a little bit on it, first.
Richard Lindzen is one of the few legitimate scientists with actual experience in climatology and he doesn't seem to have any problems publishing his papers that question the consensus view of climate change. Most of the so called "censorship" that climate change critics complain about is hypothetical. They think that if they did write something then it wouldn't get published. It's really an excuse for why they usually can't point to any journal articles that support their position. Personally, I think it's a way to cover up the fact that most of people who criticise global warming actually aren't scientists, have no relevant experience, and are instead basing their opposition on their "gut feelings" or pay checks. You're suppose to come away thinking that there are amazing papers that are being hidden away from you. It's a ridiculous argument, you can't hide this type of stuff in the Internet age, yet somehow the very same web sites that claim this censorship is happening don't have any good examples of papers that were censored. How is that even possible, let alone probable?
The thing you should remember about the aphorism about science advancing one funeral at a time, is that it can cut both ways. What if the people opposed to climate change are the "stubborn and petty" ones? After all, the letter in question was signed by 49 retired engineers, astronauts, and administrators. As a side note: NASA currently employs around 16,000, I wouldn't be surprised if there more than 50,000 former NASA employees. That would put these guys at around 0.1% of the potential group, how hard do you think it would be to find 49 former NASA employees to write a letter with the exact opposite message? Furthermore, none of these guys have experience in the field they are criticising. The closest is the one guy who worked as a TV weatherman for a few years.
It's actually about 72 times over the first 20 years, and declines to 7.6 times over 500 years. 72 is not good, but you also have to figure the relative amount of emissions and the lifetime in the atmosphere. About 12 years in methane will degrade to become CO2. Now if we are emitting a thousand times more CO2 than Methane, then it should be clear that CO2 which can last for thousands of years in the atmosphere is a bigger problem. By the way, we've increased methane levels by approximately 1 part per million over the last 250 years, while we've increased CO2 by 114 parts per million.
So ask yourself what's bigger, 72 or 114. And that's the short term effect. The long term is 7.6 or 114. Lastly it doesn't look like Methane emissions are climbing very much. Looking at the U.S. EPA Chart shows that Methane emissions have grown almost 2% over the last 30 years.
You need to look at the big picture, in a triage situation you address the biggest and easiest to control problem first, and in this case it's CO2 emissions, which are 1.5 times worse over the next 15 years and about 15 times worse over the long run.
He's not questioning the powers that be, he was paid to produce "research" that questioned vaccines so that he and his partners could profit off of lawsuits based on that "research". His "research studies" included children he'd never even met, children who apparently don't exist, children he claimed had autism that don't have it, and other egregious errors indicative of fraud.
He gets attacked because he sold his professional credibility for the chance to cash in on a lawsuit. He stood to make millions of dollars and endangered the life of countless children to line his own pockets. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of children and it doesn't seem to affect him at all. I don't know whether he's in deep denial or a sociopath, but there is something deeply wrong with Andrew Wakefield.