They're referring to conspiracist ideation, a particular set of behaviors of which presuming nefarious intent is just one part. (In much the same way that exhibiting an itch is not a diagnosis of lupus.)
It's a little more egregious than that. If I were to accuse you of attributing activities to malevolent cabals of elves, you would be quite right in calling me an imbecile, but would abandon the moral high ground if you suggested I was in fact an agglomeration of twelve elves standing on each other's shoulders simply pretending to be a person to advance my elvish plots.
Well, if you'd read the paper, you'd see that they define a specific set of behaviors as relating to "conspiratorial thinking" before setting out to do the study. They don't just sit down and say "yeah, that looks conspiratorial".
"Conspiratorial thinking" is the set of behaviors defined in the paper, i.e. it is not simply a comment related to a conspiracy, but a worldview built around the existence of particular kinds of conspiracies.
If only it were the case that people were simply arguing over the correct course of action. Your nation actually has elected representatives who think that all of the scientists behind climate research are part of some secret scheme to make millions of dollars and the data was entirely made up. I mean they have stated these things as though they were facts in the political decision-making process of your country.
"But today people often say there is a conspiracy by big oil": yes, and by their definition that would be an example of a conspiratorial mindset on the part of the person holding the belief. What is your problem with that?
I direct you to my comment of the day previous that it's hardly a process most end-users can be expected to go through for the sake of getting a fifth of their hard drive back.
What do you mean "abandoned"? The first paper is listed on his publications page as being accepted for publication by Psychological Science. Given the usual academic journal turn-around times it seems like it passed peer review with flying colours.
You've got the causality backwards. The theory evaluated conspiracy theorists' tendencies to believe in climate change, not climate change deniers' tendencies to conspiracy theory. That's an interesting but significant difference, because the implications are different (in this case, that conspiratorial thinking leads to a more generalised rejection of orthodoxy).
The trouble is that what happened to Shoemaker Levy 9 doesn't scale down: it was ripped apart by the tidal forces of a gas giant, and those forces don't exist for a similar size of body interacting with Earth.
"Man not fired from job he doesn't like, for making game about how much he hates his job, to fund aspirations of leaving job" doesn't exactly invoke outrage.
If you've got the equipment, have a look in person, but then if you have the equipment you probably already know that. It'd be a stretch for a novice with binoculars, and naked eye is right out.
What's inane about it? I don't have a ready shorthand of things x metres across in my head to get a grasp of the scale, so they're doing me a favour. For nontechnical readers they're making it slightly more tangable than "space thing you don't understand is flying near Earth".
Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference, and it contains about 400 satellites at present. Assuming they're each 50m wide (which is probably an exaggeration) then the satellites, in total, cover 20km of that circumference. So if we were to assume that all the satellites are in the same plane, and that the asteroid was definitely going to come in through that plane, then the chances of the asteroid meeting one of those satellites is 0.008%.
A back of the envelope calculation suggests you have the same odds of spinning around in a circle with your eyes shut and successfully pointing at a person standing 3km away.
By "facts" usually they're referring to what a "fact checker" (which is an actual journalistic role) would look into: simple, unambiguous statements that the newspaper would be embarrased to get wrong. "X was born in Y". "Under A's tenure, statistic B changed by C". Amazingly enough politicians lie prolifically about even those things.
Slashdot Mirror
They're referring to conspiracist ideation, a particular set of behaviors of which presuming nefarious intent is just one part. (In much the same way that exhibiting an itch is not a diagnosis of lupus.)
It's a little more egregious than that. If I were to accuse you of attributing activities to malevolent cabals of elves, you would be quite right in calling me an imbecile, but would abandon the moral high ground if you suggested I was in fact an agglomeration of twelve elves standing on each other's shoulders simply pretending to be a person to advance my elvish plots.
Well, if you'd read the paper, you'd see that they define a specific set of behaviors as relating to "conspiratorial thinking" before setting out to do the study. They don't just sit down and say "yeah, that looks conspiratorial".
"Conspiratorial thinking" is the set of behaviors defined in the paper, i.e. it is not simply a comment related to a conspiracy, but a worldview built around the existence of particular kinds of conspiracies.
If only it were the case that people were simply arguing over the correct course of action. Your nation actually has elected representatives who think that all of the scientists behind climate research are part of some secret scheme to make millions of dollars and the data was entirely made up. I mean they have stated these things as though they were facts in the political decision-making process of your country.
"But today people often say there is a conspiracy by big oil": yes, and by their definition that would be an example of a conspiratorial mindset on the part of the person holding the belief. What is your problem with that?
I direct you to my comment of the day previous that it's hardly a process most end-users can be expected to go through for the sake of getting a fifth of their hard drive back.
I'm not sure that we disagree, it's a good feature. The point is that you lose a hell of a lot of space to it on an already-small SSD.
I don't think you understand what the research is about.
What pro-climate-change version of slashdot do you get? And how can I switch over to it? This one seems to be wall to wall arguments.
What do you mean "abandoned"? The first paper is listed on his publications page as being accepted for publication by Psychological Science. Given the usual academic journal turn-around times it seems like it passed peer review with flying colours.
ElReg does not agree with the scientific concensus on global warming.
I would love you see you substantiate the first clause of your first sentence.
You may note that I referred to it as an implication.
You've got the causality backwards. The theory evaluated conspiracy theorists' tendencies to believe in climate change, not climate change deniers' tendencies to conspiracy theory. That's an interesting but significant difference, because the implications are different (in this case, that conspiratorial thinking leads to a more generalised rejection of orthodoxy).
I'll level with you: it was actually a pad of post-its.
Seeing as I only found out about that now...
The trouble is that what happened to Shoemaker Levy 9 doesn't scale down: it was ripped apart by the tidal forces of a gas giant, and those forces don't exist for a similar size of body interacting with Earth.
"Man not fired from job he doesn't like, for making game about how much he hates his job, to fund aspirations of leaving job" doesn't exactly invoke outrage.
If you've got the equipment, have a look in person, but then if you have the equipment you probably already know that. It'd be a stretch for a novice with binoculars, and naked eye is right out.
What's inane about it? I don't have a ready shorthand of things x metres across in my head to get a grasp of the scale, so they're doing me a favour. For nontechnical readers they're making it slightly more tangable than "space thing you don't understand is flying near Earth".
Well, geostationary orbit is about 250,000 km in circumference, and it contains about 400 satellites at present. Assuming they're each 50m wide (which is probably an exaggeration) then the satellites, in total, cover 20km of that circumference. So if we were to assume that all the satellites are in the same plane, and that the asteroid was definitely going to come in through that plane, then the chances of the asteroid meeting one of those satellites is 0.008%.
A back of the envelope calculation suggests you have the same odds of spinning around in a circle with your eyes shut and successfully pointing at a person standing 3km away.
So, its diameter is the same as the smallest dimension of an American football field, i.e. it would fit inside one if it was spherical.
Chuck Norris doesn't believe in asteroids, because they are not consistent with young earth creationism. His one weakness!
By "facts" usually they're referring to what a "fact checker" (which is an actual journalistic role) would look into: simple, unambiguous statements that the newspaper would be embarrased to get wrong. "X was born in Y". "Under A's tenure, statistic B changed by C". Amazingly enough politicians lie prolifically about even those things.