Deniers always talk about popper, and science, and how they are the rigorous ones. They want falsifiable hypotheses, and when they get one -- they will argue black is white over whether or not it is falsifiable. They think they know more then the 1000s of/actual/ scientists who study the issue.
It is denial, because it is a black and white issue, they are right, and there is an inability to cognitively represent any disconfirming evidence. They always see themselves as sane, and therefore people who disagree with them are: stupid, evil, or uneducated.
Lord Monckton is at the zenith of climate change denialism. I honestly believe that he doesn't know he is just making stuff up. Vetren anti-science debunker potholer54 puts out a challenge to denialists: come up with ONE thing that Monckton gets right, that calls into question the IPCC's conclusions. To complete the challenge, you actually have to find Monckton's references, and assess that they really support what Monckton say.
And this is the key sticking point. Denialists just believe anything they hear, so long as it confirms their biases. It is obvious that denialists doen't follow references, because of the absurdly high number of mistakes that are made.
There is actually a slew of falsifiable hypotheses in AGW. All of them are very precisely defined and tested. An argument is built from 1000s of studies of more then 100 years of scientific research.
Don't believe me? Crack open an IPCC report and actually read it.
PS: Popper is not without critics in the philosophy of science, but that is another story.
The is idealism. They believe that environmentalist-anything is a threat to free society. They are laissez-faire extremists. They always ask for more evidence whenever there is some threat from science.
The historian Naomi Oreskes wrote a book call "Merchants of Doubt" that details the activities of the Heartland Institute and those like it, in the war on science. It is always a fight against regulation or government interference, and they play/dirty/.
Although this talk is about AGW, it gives a very good overview of the think-tank situation in the USA. American denial of global warming.
If you think AGW has nothing to do with it, then it is time to hit the books, and learn something rather chilling about propaganda and the political right.
As opposed to the always calm, unemotional arguments of environmentalists and global warming activists? Come on, there's plenty of emotion (if not outright hysteria) on both sides.
The two sides are not even remotely comparable. Most IPCC scientists are thoroughly against environmental alarmism.
All you have to do, is follow the references that some "alarmist" or "skeptic" comes up with. Keep following them to their source, and assess whether they are actually using them correctly. This is shockingly easy to do, and you if you do it, you will quickly discover that the "skeptics" are actually "believers" since they will believe anything that reifies their biases. (Environmentalist ideologues do this as well -- but we're talking about the "scientific" debate here.)
Since the facts are squarely stacked against the "skeptics", we see a lot of projection, denial, hostility, anger, externalisation, and very, very little unemotional argumentation.
on the left you have the Rev Al Gore and his supporters who fart around in lear jets and motorcades while living like pigs in houses with indoor basketball courts while saying YOU dirty peasants need to pay to "save the planet"
"Reverend" Al Gore doesn't say that. Solving the problem of climate change is really an economic growth opportunity. Really. Re-read. Don't dismiss. Think. We have a huge R&D investment opportunity, and new high-tech industries and products... and guess what... Europe and Asia may take it all.
The cowardly pundit will say Democrats do it and Republicans do it. This is true but banal. We could also say the Hitler and Lincoln were imperfect human beings.
There is a whole new level of crazy that has gripped Republican politics, and it is really too bad. I would love to have seen John Huntsman do well in the primaries, or even see the Republicans field some accomplished credentials. (e.g.: Colin Powell would be more accomplished then the entire republican field put together.)
Now we have the party of anti-science. We have Karl Rove eschewing the "reality-based community" which looks for solutions through judicious analysis. We have reactionary politics and faith-based righteous indignation. Somewhat ironically, Jesus preached love, not fear. And the christian right are driven by fear of all sorts of things -- mainly irrational.
The republicans really need to remake themselves, but the Tea Party has been a step in the wrong direction. More fear and reactionary politics. It really is too bad.
See, here's another moron sticking up for this shitty president.
There are people who just hate one side or another. And they predictably come up with the most shockingly shallow bullshit. And when someone points out/anything/ that might question deeply held prejudices, the ideologues call them stupid.
The truth is not always on one side or the other, and it is not always neatly in between -- and society as a whole would benefit/greatly/ if people like you suddenly moved to pluto, where you could scream at each other all day, and the rest of society could actually get on with addressing the ISSUES.
I say this, already expecting a big woooossshhh before I even hit the Submit button. Part of me thinks you are a charity case.
Problem with IE10, is that it only runs on Microsoft. Depends on who you are developing for, but if it the general public, then you are out-of luck. Write to the most standard's compliant platform first, and then/test/ on all platforms.
For in-house web databases, I see nothing wrong with standardising on IE, but no more compelling reason then using Firefox, Safari (if you're OSX), Chrome, or even Opera.
So... what exactly is your point? That you can write cross-browser apps only targetting IE10 because it is most standard's compliant? Surely that's not what you mean.
The Japanese economy is doing fine when you consider that they made a self-conscious decision to stop growing the population. While the inflation corrected GDP shows only tiny year-on-year growth, there economy is booming when you measure wealth in other ways: technological penetration, education, life expectancy,... you know, all the important stuff.
Japan faulted under a ridiculous property market boom and bust, and now they are going steady.
I generally agree with your point but this last statement destroys credibility. 11th cousins is hardly surprising. Odds are, that 11th cousins includes half or the USA.
That, or allow Monsanto to destroy all small farms not using their product. I which case, Monsanto share holders do incredibly well, and the country suffers.
AND we lose the food security of genetically diverse species of crop.
It's not a contradiction. There is a big difference between a farmer who may have some Monsanto crops on the fringes of his fields, and a guy whose entire crop is Monsanto (but who trying to claim it's "just from stray pollination").
If only that was what was happening.
A/tiny/ bit of proprietary DNA gets in your farms seed -- say a few seeds spill from a transportation truck -- and then Monsanto gets you to burn your entire seed inventory, which is a competing technology to their product.
It is so grossly and bizarrely unfair, that you should really investigate for yourself to be sure of the facts, because it stretches disbelief. The justice system has really fscked up here.
That if any pollen from monsanto crops were to stray onto my property, that is a form of industrial pollution. It's worse for my farm than radioactive fallout.
The courts disagreed. It is truly absurd, but Monsanto then forces farmers to burn all their seed (which is a competing technology, local to the particular farm or community) and then you gotta buy from the big seed guys.
Of course if the press did it's job properly [youtube.com] the constitutional right to knowingly publish propaganda under the guise of informed opinion would be far less harmful to others.
The Marshall Institute, which grand-fathered in a lot of this stuff, decided to deal with the press issue with legal threats. (The same actors were involved in promoting the Star Wars program.) Naomi Oreskes has a great talk on the topic -- and a great book.
By revelation of these emails, Fred Singer's respect in peer reviewed literature has dropped to slightly lower than the asshole liars who used to publish "peer reviewed" studies backed by tobacco companies claiming that tobacco smoke isn't related to cancer...
btw, it was the same Fred Singer who backed studies by the tobacco companies claiming that tobacco is harmless. The same guy. Read "Merchants of Doubt" if you want to know more. It goes deeper then just AGW and tobacco.
Give me the source code and raw, unadjusted measurement data so I can replicate these results.
This is such an obvious misdirection tactic. You will never replicate the results. Now that you've wasted everyone's time, you will just find some other minutia to pick one. For ever and ever.
I must have missed the link where they correct this and admit the entire Climategate "controversy" was proven false, and that no deliberate manipulation of data was actually found. I am sure they are still working on that release...
I have met plenty of people who really believe that climate-gate was a smoking gun -- to the point that they cannot even read the complete emails, or the results of the many investigations.
And they think of themselves as perfectly logical, grounding everything in evidence and fact.
We are dealing with the inability of the mind to represent information that conflicts with beliefs. Try to imagine the bizarre thoughts that the people at the Heartland institute will be generating to "explain" all of this in their mind, so that they are the good guy.
The ring-leaders are almost always the most extreme -- and the only way to "correct" the discourse is to show just how ridiculous they are.
You better have some damn FUCKING GOOD PROOF of the bad outcomes to justify taking away ANY of anyones freedoms.
You are alluding to a risk management analysis. Do you wait until your house burns down before you decide that insurance would be a good idea?
There is no point talking about *FUCKING GOOD PROOF* (your words) until you have framed the risk you are willing to accept, and how your risk assessment impinged on my FUCKING FREEDOM to have my own risk assessment, for me and my kids.
I bet if global warming screws up your grand-children's lives, you will still blame liberals.
and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming
Here's your first problem. The scientists aren't advocating laws -- just pointing out what is happening. The people who don't want any change attack new laws proposed by 3rd parties by attacking the science.
So you are conflating something.
Nobody is advocating implementing "all the regulations" -- even the most ardent liberals. We just need to have a conversation on how to solve the problem. Cap-and-trade is just one proposed policy action, and is the product of market-fundamentalist thought. It is the type of thing that the Tea Party should be putting forward. But we cannot even have a conversation about solutions, because political ideologies try very *very* hard to believe that AGW is just a fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... if you go listen to what Gleick has to say about that, you may come to a different conclusion.
Deniers always talk about popper, and science, and how they are the rigorous ones. They want falsifiable hypotheses, and when they get one -- they will argue black is white over whether or not it is falsifiable. They think they know more then the 1000s of /actual/ scientists who study the issue.
It is denial, because it is a black and white issue, they are right, and there is an inability to cognitively represent any disconfirming evidence. They always see themselves as sane, and therefore people who disagree with them are: stupid, evil, or uneducated.
Lord Monckton is at the zenith of climate change denialism. I honestly believe that he doesn't know he is just making stuff up. Vetren anti-science debunker potholer54 puts out a challenge to denialists: come up with ONE thing that Monckton gets right, that calls into question the IPCC's conclusions. To complete the challenge, you actually have to find Monckton's references, and assess that they really support what Monckton say.
And this is the key sticking point. Denialists just believe anything they hear, so long as it confirms their biases. It is obvious that denialists doen't follow references, because of the absurdly high number of mistakes that are made.
There is actually a slew of falsifiable hypotheses in AGW. All of them are very precisely defined and tested. An argument is built from 1000s of studies of more then 100 years of scientific research.
Don't believe me? Crack open an IPCC report and actually read it.
PS: Popper is not without critics in the philosophy of science, but that is another story.
There is no idealism here at all.
The is idealism. They believe that environmentalist-anything is a threat to free society. They are laissez-faire extremists. They always ask for more evidence whenever there is some threat from science.
The point being, there is no reason to exaggerate unless you're wrong. ;)
There may be no reason, but people do get excited.
Irrational I know.
Let cooler heads prevail. (Fingers crossed.)
The historian Naomi Oreskes wrote a book call "Merchants of Doubt" that details the activities of the Heartland Institute and those like it, in the war on science. It is always a fight against regulation or government interference, and they play /dirty/.
Although this talk is about AGW, it gives a very good overview of the think-tank situation in the USA. American denial of global warming.
If you think AGW has nothing to do with it, then it is time to hit the books, and learn something rather chilling about propaganda and the political right.
As opposed to the always calm, unemotional arguments of environmentalists and global warming activists? Come on, there's plenty of emotion (if not outright hysteria) on both sides.
The two sides are not even remotely comparable. Most IPCC scientists are thoroughly against environmental alarmism.
All you have to do, is follow the references that some "alarmist" or "skeptic" comes up with. Keep following them to their source, and assess whether they are actually using them correctly. This is shockingly easy to do, and you if you do it, you will quickly discover that the "skeptics" are actually "believers" since they will believe anything that reifies their biases. (Environmentalist ideologues do this as well -- but we're talking about the "scientific" debate here.)
Since the facts are squarely stacked against the "skeptics", we see a lot of projection, denial, hostility, anger, externalisation, and very, very little unemotional argumentation.
on the left you have the Rev Al Gore and his supporters who fart around in lear jets and motorcades while living like pigs in houses with indoor basketball courts while saying YOU dirty peasants need to pay to "save the planet"
"Reverend" Al Gore doesn't say that. Solving the problem of climate change is really an economic growth opportunity. Really. Re-read. Don't dismiss. Think. We have a huge R&D investment opportunity, and new high-tech industries and products... and guess what... Europe and Asia may take it all.
Facts don't matter in American politics.
The cowardly pundit will say Democrats do it and Republicans do it. This is true but banal. We could also say the Hitler and Lincoln were imperfect human beings.
There is a whole new level of crazy that has gripped Republican politics, and it is really too bad. I would love to have seen John Huntsman do well in the primaries, or even see the Republicans field some accomplished credentials. (e.g.: Colin Powell would be more accomplished then the entire republican field put together.)
Now we have the party of anti-science. We have Karl Rove eschewing the "reality-based community" which looks for solutions through judicious analysis. We have reactionary politics and faith-based righteous indignation. Somewhat ironically, Jesus preached love, not fear. And the christian right are driven by fear of all sorts of things -- mainly irrational.
The republicans really need to remake themselves, but the Tea Party has been a step in the wrong direction. More fear and reactionary politics. It really is too bad.
See, here's another moron sticking up for this shitty president.
There are people who just hate one side or another. And they predictably come up with the most shockingly shallow bullshit. And when someone points out /anything/ that might question deeply held prejudices, the ideologues call them stupid.
/greatly/ if people like you suddenly moved to pluto, where you could scream at each other all day, and the rest of society could actually get on with addressing the ISSUES.
The truth is not always on one side or the other, and it is not always neatly in between -- and society as a whole would benefit
I say this, already expecting a big woooossshhh before I even hit the Submit button. Part of me thinks you are a charity case.
Problem with IE10, is that it only runs on Microsoft. Depends on who you are developing for, but if it the general public, then you are out-of luck. Write to the most standard's compliant platform first, and then /test/ on all platforms.
For in-house web databases, I see nothing wrong with standardising on IE, but no more compelling reason then using Firefox, Safari (if you're OSX), Chrome, or even Opera.
So... what exactly is your point? That you can write cross-browser apps only targetting IE10 because it is most standard's compliant? Surely that's not what you mean.
The Japanese economy is doing fine when you consider that they made a self-conscious decision to stop growing the population. While the inflation corrected GDP shows only tiny year-on-year growth, there economy is booming when you measure wealth in other ways: technological penetration, education, life expectancy, ... you know, all the important stuff.
Japan faulted under a ridiculous property market boom and bust, and now they are going steady.
Japan is in worse financial condition...
You should read about the myth of Japan's failure.
Regulatory capture.
You have been the best entertainment all day. Let me guess -- the girls just /love/ you =0
Europe owes the entire world a larger moral debt than the US ever will.
Yep. The Europeans invented human nature!!! That snake in the tree selling apples - he was /European/!!! Probably even French!!!
Heck, even Obama and Bush are cousins.
I generally agree with your point but this last statement destroys credibility. 11th cousins is hardly surprising. Odds are, that 11th cousins includes half or the USA.
That, or allow Monsanto to destroy all small farms not using their product. I which case, Monsanto share holders do incredibly well, and the country suffers.
AND we lose the food security of genetically diverse species of crop.
It's not a contradiction. There is a big difference between a farmer who may have some Monsanto crops on the fringes of his fields, and a guy whose entire crop is Monsanto (but who trying to claim it's "just from stray pollination").
If only that was what was happening.
/tiny/ bit of proprietary DNA gets in your farms seed -- say a few seeds spill from a transportation truck -- and then Monsanto gets you to burn your entire seed inventory, which is a competing technology to their product.
A
It is so grossly and bizarrely unfair, that you should really investigate for yourself to be sure of the facts, because it stretches disbelief. The justice system has really fscked up here.
That if any pollen from monsanto crops were to stray onto my property, that is a form of industrial pollution. It's worse for my farm than radioactive fallout.
The courts disagreed. It is truly absurd, but Monsanto then forces farmers to burn all their seed (which is a competing technology, local to the particular farm or community) and then you gotta buy from the big seed guys.
Of course if the press did it's job properly [youtube.com] the constitutional right to knowingly publish propaganda under the guise of informed opinion would be far less harmful to others.
The Marshall Institute, which grand-fathered in a lot of this stuff, decided to deal with the press issue with legal threats. (The same actors were involved in promoting the Star Wars program.) Naomi Oreskes has a great talk on the topic -- and a great book.
By revelation of these emails, Fred Singer's respect in peer reviewed literature has dropped to slightly lower than the asshole liars who used to publish "peer reviewed" studies backed by tobacco companies claiming that tobacco smoke isn't related to cancer...
btw, it was the same Fred Singer who backed studies by the tobacco companies claiming that tobacco is harmless. The same guy. Read "Merchants of Doubt" if you want to know more. It goes deeper then just AGW and tobacco.
Give me the source code and raw, unadjusted measurement data so I can replicate these results.
This is such an obvious misdirection tactic. You will never replicate the results. Now that you've wasted everyone's time, you will just find some other minutia to pick one. For ever and ever.
Grow the fuck up.
I must have missed the link where they correct this and admit the entire Climategate "controversy" was proven false, and that no deliberate manipulation of data was actually found. I am sure they are still working on that release...
I have met plenty of people who really believe that climate-gate was a smoking gun -- to the point that they cannot even read the complete emails, or the results of the many investigations.
And they think of themselves as perfectly logical, grounding everything in evidence and fact.
We are dealing with the inability of the mind to represent information that conflicts with beliefs. Try to imagine the bizarre thoughts that the people at the Heartland institute will be generating to "explain" all of this in their mind, so that they are the good guy.
The ring-leaders are almost always the most extreme -- and the only way to "correct" the discourse is to show just how ridiculous they are.
You better have some damn FUCKING GOOD PROOF of the bad outcomes to justify taking away ANY of anyones freedoms.
You are alluding to a risk management analysis. Do you wait until your house burns down before you decide that insurance would be a good idea?
There is no point talking about *FUCKING GOOD PROOF* (your words) until you have framed the risk you are willing to accept, and how your risk assessment impinged on my FUCKING FREEDOM to have my own risk assessment, for me and my kids.
I bet if global warming screws up your grand-children's lives, you will still blame liberals.
and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming
Here's your first problem. The scientists aren't advocating laws -- just pointing out what is happening. The people who don't want any change attack new laws proposed by 3rd parties by attacking the science.
So you are conflating something.
Nobody is advocating implementing "all the regulations" -- even the most ardent liberals. We just need to have a conversation on how to solve the problem. Cap-and-trade is just one proposed policy action, and is the product of market-fundamentalist thought. It is the type of thing that the Tea Party should be putting forward. But we cannot even have a conversation about solutions, because political ideologies try very *very* hard to believe that AGW is just a fiction.