The earth being flat was not a scientific claim. The earth being the center of the universe was not a scientific claim. The earth being created by a god was not a scientific claim.
Why are you trying to spread FUD about science by lying and claiming that those religious claims were scientific claims?
It doesn't matter if you think the science is with an agenda or if you think politics have gotten involved. The facts speak for themselves. Thousands of scientists from all over the world have published thousands of papers showing the same thing. Your wishful thinking and attempt at spreading FUD about science won't change the scientific facts.
Scientists are not being paid to look for something specific. They're paid to produce research that shows us how things work.
And your NASA story is obviously a lie, and eugenics wasn't even backed by actual science. Nice attempt at FUD, though.
It's just too bad that you are so gullible that you actually swallowed the lies in that movie, and without even checking the claims! The movie is so full of misinformation that only someone who is either ignorant or completely dishonest will promote it to anyone else.
And that list of "professors"? Piers Corbyn the failed weather forecaster? Roy Spencer the CREATIONIST? Seriously?! Did you even look at the list you just linked to?
The movie is pure garbage. It's nothing but a propaganda piece full of lies and misinformation. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
Almost everybody in the USA agrees that the climate is changing, but there are lots of disagreements about cause and effect, and many more about solutions.
There are not lots of disagreements about cause and effect in the actual scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is great agreement, because all the research shows the same thing. Papers that seem to show something else always turn out to contain major errors.
For something to be astroturfing, it needs to "disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction." Someone liking something under his personal account without attempting to hide his identity or portray himself as someone or something else (which would be the case here) does not seem to fit that definition.
Various industries (movies, TV manufacturers, etc.) are pushing hard for 3D to improve their margins. However, 3D sales are terrible. They started out decently, but people quickly realized that 3D was not something they actually wanted. That's why I'm saying the mass market has rejected 3D. If it hadn't, sales would be excellent.
By the way, I watched Avatar in 3D. I hated it. It didn't add anything to the movie. If anything, it detracted from it. The article mentions Avatar as a learning experience for Titanic 3D, which makes me wonder even more. Did they fix Titanic 3D so that it actually adds something this time? Is that why it's such a hit?
Exactly. 3D has failed big time, but Titanic 3D is attracting lots of people. I made a separate comment about it: Is it because it's Titanic the movie or is it that it is in 3D? Would a re-release of the original movie be a big hit?
I'm somewhat confused by the success of the 3D "remake" of Titanic, considering that 3D has been a massive failure so far. The market (not counting a tiny niche of enthusiasts) has rejected 3D at the movies, on game consoles, on TVs, etc. Sales started out decently, but took a major hit, and there just doesn't seem to be any interest in 3D.
So when 3D Titanic is such a success (at least for now), is that because people are just thrilled to see a "classic" again at the movies, or is the 3D genuinely sparking people's interest? Is it the 3D that is causing people to buy tickets? And if so, why did just about everything else 3D fail so far?
Is this the resurrection of Titanic the movie, or the 3D experience?
Slashdot Mirror
Science makes the guy who cites the science right. Simple as that. What other group are you referring to?
Yeah... Congratulations, you right-wingers are winning a war against science and scientific facts. You must be proud of yourselves.
He is obviously not a physics guy. He's just another astroturfer who will say anything to deceive people on behalf of his employer.
The earth being flat was not a scientific claim. The earth being the center of the universe was not a scientific claim. The earth being created by a god was not a scientific claim.
Why are you trying to spread FUD about science by lying and claiming that those religious claims were scientific claims?
What's with your "global war ... uh, climate change" comment? The climate is changing, and specifically, it is changing by getting warmer.
It doesn't matter if you think the science is with an agenda or if you think politics have gotten involved. The facts speak for themselves. Thousands of scientists from all over the world have published thousands of papers showing the same thing. Your wishful thinking and attempt at spreading FUD about science won't change the scientific facts.
Scientists are not being paid to look for something specific. They're paid to produce research that shows us how things work.
And your NASA story is obviously a lie, and eugenics wasn't even backed by actual science. Nice attempt at FUD, though.
It's just too bad that you are so gullible that you actually swallowed the lies in that movie, and without even checking the claims! The movie is so full of misinformation that only someone who is either ignorant or completely dishonest will promote it to anyone else.
And that list of "professors"? Piers Corbyn the failed weather forecaster? Roy Spencer the CREATIONIST? Seriously?! Did you even look at the list you just linked to?
The movie is pure garbage. It's nothing but a propaganda piece full of lies and misinformation. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
James Delingpole? Seriously? James "interpreter of interpretations" Delingpole? James "does not read any scientific literature" Delingpole?
That James delingpole?
Wow, what a great scientific source!
Several people have asked you for sources and references, and it seems that you failed to produce them. Why?
So because some journalist made over the top claims, the science is false? Is that what you are saying?
Hansen did not predict an ice age in 1971. Your claim is a blatant lie.
There are not lots of disagreements about cause and effect in the actual scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is great agreement, because all the research shows the same thing. Papers that seem to show something else always turn out to contain major errors.
Isn't it interesting how there was a story about astroturfing on Slashdot just the other day, and now we get to see it in action? It's fascinating!
Hmm, I hated Avatar in 3D... Avatar in 2D was OK, but the 3D made it much worse.
What's so popular about mobile photos with sepia filters? I don't get it. Why can't you just take regular photos and not apply sepia filters?
For something to be astroturfing, it needs to "disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction." Someone liking something under his personal account without attempting to hide his identity or portray himself as someone or something else (which would be the case here) does not seem to fit that definition.
Make it through? Slashdot comments are not pre-screened!
Oh, like the portable music player market? Or the mobile phone market? Yep, totally new! No such thing before Apple came along, no sirree!
Various industries (movies, TV manufacturers, etc.) are pushing hard for 3D to improve their margins. However, 3D sales are terrible. They started out decently, but people quickly realized that 3D was not something they actually wanted. That's why I'm saying the mass market has rejected 3D. If it hadn't, sales would be excellent.
Color actually added something to movies, I think. And if I am not mistaken, the mass market did not outright reject it, unlike 3D.
By the way, I watched Avatar in 3D. I hated it. It didn't add anything to the movie. If anything, it detracted from it. The article mentions Avatar as a learning experience for Titanic 3D, which makes me wonder even more. Did they fix Titanic 3D so that it actually adds something this time? Is that why it's such a hit?
Exactly. 3D has failed big time, but Titanic 3D is attracting lots of people. I made a separate comment about it: Is it because it's Titanic the movie or is it that it is in 3D? Would a re-release of the original movie be a big hit?
I'm somewhat confused by the success of the 3D "remake" of Titanic, considering that 3D has been a massive failure so far. The market (not counting a tiny niche of enthusiasts) has rejected 3D at the movies, on game consoles, on TVs, etc. Sales started out decently, but took a major hit, and there just doesn't seem to be any interest in 3D.
So when 3D Titanic is such a success (at least for now), is that because people are just thrilled to see a "classic" again at the movies, or is the 3D genuinely sparking people's interest? Is it the 3D that is causing people to buy tickets? And if so, why did just about everything else 3D fail so far?
Is this the resurrection of Titanic the movie, or the 3D experience?
The Samsung Galaxy 2 beat Apple's hardware style? No. The SG2 is butt-ugly. The rest of your comment is very interesting, though.
Guillotines.