kinda just left that one dangling.....damn IPhone
"the integrity of the science is degraded"
When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.
- Thread starter Grat3fulh3ad
- Start date
- Status
kinda just left that one dangling.....damn IPhone
"the integrity of the science is degraded"
no i saw an agency with a predetermined conclusion and a stated policy goal trying to bring about "independent" science to fit their forgone conclusion.
kinda like when the NRA calls for "gun saftey"
or
kinda like the fox guarding the hen house.
you have an environmental group with a stated goal of "changing governmental policy" funding these "independent" scientists?
i call shens
BTW that picture was a jab at you. I wasn't calling you a heretic. I was implying your scientific denailist (lol) absolutist point of view has become the new religion for those disillusioned with organized religion. You've simply organized yourself around a new faith.
You preached the word of God in your past and came to the conclusion that organized religion was nothing more than a control mechanism meant to control the behavior of the masses. You know I agree with you on that.
IMO, you have just found a new religion to preach with this man made Global Warming argument set forth by our corrupted establishment. This time under the veil of and intertwined with real physical science. It's genius propaganda. Almost of as genius as the rise of American Fascism.
This new phenomenon coined "denialism" is all part of this BS, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian economics global model we live in. It's all new and I'll have say it sucks. IMO, your the "denialist" because you think you are too smart to be brainwashed. But you are just human. It can happen to anyone. It already happened to you once and there you go again.
You're underlying intention for this thread is very clear bro. You can sit there and try and play it off till you are blue in the face , but it obvious what you are doing.
i knew it was a jab...
I treated it like the meaningless joke it was.
I have no absolutist views...
Science is not ever absolutist...
Understanding of science is not tantamount to brainwashing...
your posts are good examples of exactly what the first post of the thread addresses.
you can pretend my perfectly reasonable views are something other than they are, but that doesn't make your distortion relevant.
now go get stoned and stop trying to jab people...
I treated it like the meaningless joke it was.
I have no absolutist views...
Science is not ever absolutist...
Understanding of science is not tantamount to brainwashing...
your posts are good examples of exactly what the first post of the thread addresses.
you can pretend my perfectly reasonable views are something other than they are, but that doesn't make your distortion relevant.
now go get stoned and stop trying to jab people...
Faith in science and faith in the modern scientific establishment are two different things. I'm off.
Maria_Vanessa
Member
Funding is a funny thing. When a scientific study does get funded its usually by an organization, either government, for-profit or non-profit, that is funding a specific project. Any study, scientific or not, can be very expensive to perform, and money is hard to come by, which is why sometimes you'll see an entire department solely dedicated to writing and applying for funding. And no organization is going to be willing to just handover 6 or 7 figures of cash unless the people who are managing and executing the study know their what they are doing and won't waste a penny. Block grants for scientific studies that will be published in public, review journals is very rare, unless someone can correct me. Regulated? You'll have go into more detail when you say regulated. The reason why I say that is because if a scientist is working with chemicals or biological agents that aren't handled and treated properly and disposed of carefully and safely, then there is potential harm to others and the enviroment. That kind of regulation, I am 100% behind.
maryj315
Member
You know I get paranoid myself after smoking too much strawberry diesel. Don't let them get you.
Mj
Faith in science and faith in the modern scientific establishment are two different things. I'm off.
and your assumption is yet another different thing... You're usually off, but only a bit.
Faith is not a quality I strongly possess, funny you think I do, when i've never claimed belief in anything intangible.
Defining and recognizing denialism
The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists. In this viewpoint, we argue that public health scientists should be aware of the features of denialism and be able to recognize and confront it.
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.
The first is the identification of conspiracies.
When the overwhelming body of scien- tific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant
applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought. The view of General Jack D Ripper that fluoridation was a Soviet plot to poison American drinking water in Dr Strangelove, Kubrick’s black comedy about the Cold War is no less bizarre than those expressed in many of the websites that oppose this measure.
In some cases, denialism exploits genuine concerns, such as the rejection of evidence on the nature of AIDS by African-Americans who perceive them as a manifestation of racist agendas.While conspiracy theories cannot simply be dismissed because con- spiracies do occur, it beggars belief that they can encompass entire scientific communities.
There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one’s own characteristics and moti- vations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’, described as ‘a vertically integrated, highly con- centrated, oligopolistic cartel, combined with some public monopolies’ whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings to the widest possible public’.
The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were suppor- tive of the industry’s position. The industry embraced this concept enthu- siastically in the 1980s when a senior executive from Philip Morris developed a strategy to recruit such scientists (referring to them as ‘Whitecoats’) to help counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This activity was largely undertaken through front organizations whose links with the tobacco industry were concealed, but under the direction of law firms acting on behalf of the tobacco industry. In some countries, such as Germany, the industry created complex and influential networks, allowing it to delay the implementa- tion of tobacco control policies for many years. In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on green- house gases’. However, this is not limited to the private sector; the administration of President George W Bush was characterized by the promotion of those whose views were based on their religious beliefs or corporate affiliations, such as the advisor on reproductive health to the Food and Drug Administration who saw prayer and bible reading as the answer to pre- menstrual syndrome. A related phenomenon is the marginalization of real experts, in some cases through an alliance between industry and government, as when ExxonMobil successfully opposed the reappointment by the US government of the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These events led a group of prominent American scientists to state that ‘stacking these public com- mittees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure’. The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations. Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and who has made a great contribution to exposing tobacco industry tactics, is a frequent target for tobacco denialists. He is described on the Forces website as ‘infamous for being the boldest of liars in ‘‘tobacco control’’ that most ethically challenged gang of con artists’, adding that ‘he cynically implies his research into smoking is science, banking on the sad fact that politicians, let alone the media, have no idea that epidemiology is not real science and that his studies define the term junk science’.
The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field. An example of the former is the much- cited Lancet paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which merely suggested a possible link with immunization against measles, mumps and rubella. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association. Fortunately, the work of the Cochrane Collaboration in promoting systematic reviews has made selective citation easier to detect.
Another is a paper published by the British Medical Journal in 2003, later shown to suffer from major flaws, including a failure to report competing interests, that concluded that exposure to tobacco smoke does not increase the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. This paper has been cited extensively by those who deny that passive smoking has any health effects, with the company Japan Tobacco International still quot- ing it as justification for rejecting ‘the claim that ETS is a cause of lung cancer, heart disease and chronic pulmonary diseases in non-smokers’ as late as the end of 2008.
Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrin- sic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon. In the early 1990s, Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard, entitled Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) for the conduct of epidemiological studies. Under the GEP guidelines, odds ratios of 2 or less would not be considered strong enough evidence of causation, invalidating in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of many exposures. Although Philip Morris eventually scaled back its GEP programme, as no epidemiological body would agree to such a standard, British American Tobacco still uses this criterion to refute the risk associated with passive smoking.
The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies. For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that Hitler supported some anti- smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as Nazis (even coining the term nico-nazis), even though other senior Nazis were smokers, blocking attempts to disseminate anti-smoking propaganda and ensuring that troops has sufficient supplies of cigarettes. Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environ- mental tobacco smoke (ETS) is carcino- genic, a finding confirmed by many other authoritative national and inter- national public health institutions. The EPA assessment was described by two commentators as an ‘attempt to institutionalize a particular irrational view of the world as the only legitimate perspective, and to replace rationality with dogma as the legitimate basis of public policy’, which they labelled as nothing less than a ‘threat to the very core of democratic values and demo- cratic public policy’. Other fallacies used by denialists are false analogy, exemplified by the argument against evolution that, as the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker and the excluded middle fallacy (either passive smoking causes a wide range of specified diseases or causes none at all, so doubt about an association with one disease, such as breast cancer, is regarded as sufficient to reject an association with any disease).
Responding to denialism
Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fun- damental beliefs. Finally there is eccen- tricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status con- ferred on the maverick by the media.
Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice.
Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.
I have faith in neither... I'm more of a 'show me' type...
Most reasonable people consider me a skeptic, it is only being contrasted against denialism presented under the guise of skepticism that makes me appear otherwise.
Skepticism needs to be based on understanding to be meaningful, not merely on disagreement and distrust and feelings of paranoia.
The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists. In this viewpoint, we argue that public health scientists should be aware of the features of denialism and be able to recognize and confront it.
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.
The first is the identification of conspiracies.
When the overwhelming body of scien- tific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant
applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought. The view of General Jack D Ripper that fluoridation was a Soviet plot to poison American drinking water in Dr Strangelove, Kubrick’s black comedy about the Cold War is no less bizarre than those expressed in many of the websites that oppose this measure.
In some cases, denialism exploits genuine concerns, such as the rejection of evidence on the nature of AIDS by African-Americans who perceive them as a manifestation of racist agendas.While conspiracy theories cannot simply be dismissed because con- spiracies do occur, it beggars belief that they can encompass entire scientific communities.
There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one’s own characteristics and moti- vations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’, described as ‘a vertically integrated, highly con- centrated, oligopolistic cartel, combined with some public monopolies’ whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings to the widest possible public’.
The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were suppor- tive of the industry’s position. The industry embraced this concept enthu- siastically in the 1980s when a senior executive from Philip Morris developed a strategy to recruit such scientists (referring to them as ‘Whitecoats’) to help counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This activity was largely undertaken through front organizations whose links with the tobacco industry were concealed, but under the direction of law firms acting on behalf of the tobacco industry. In some countries, such as Germany, the industry created complex and influential networks, allowing it to delay the implementa- tion of tobacco control policies for many years. In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on green- house gases’. However, this is not limited to the private sector; the administration of President George W Bush was characterized by the promotion of those whose views were based on their religious beliefs or corporate affiliations, such as the advisor on reproductive health to the Food and Drug Administration who saw prayer and bible reading as the answer to pre- menstrual syndrome. A related phenomenon is the marginalization of real experts, in some cases through an alliance between industry and government, as when ExxonMobil successfully opposed the reappointment by the US government of the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These events led a group of prominent American scientists to state that ‘stacking these public com- mittees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure’. The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations. Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and who has made a great contribution to exposing tobacco industry tactics, is a frequent target for tobacco denialists. He is described on the Forces website as ‘infamous for being the boldest of liars in ‘‘tobacco control’’ that most ethically challenged gang of con artists’, adding that ‘he cynically implies his research into smoking is science, banking on the sad fact that politicians, let alone the media, have no idea that epidemiology is not real science and that his studies define the term junk science’.
The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field. An example of the former is the much- cited Lancet paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which merely suggested a possible link with immunization against measles, mumps and rubella. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association. Fortunately, the work of the Cochrane Collaboration in promoting systematic reviews has made selective citation easier to detect.
Another is a paper published by the British Medical Journal in 2003, later shown to suffer from major flaws, including a failure to report competing interests, that concluded that exposure to tobacco smoke does not increase the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. This paper has been cited extensively by those who deny that passive smoking has any health effects, with the company Japan Tobacco International still quot- ing it as justification for rejecting ‘the claim that ETS is a cause of lung cancer, heart disease and chronic pulmonary diseases in non-smokers’ as late as the end of 2008.
Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrin- sic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon. In the early 1990s, Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard, entitled Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) for the conduct of epidemiological studies. Under the GEP guidelines, odds ratios of 2 or less would not be considered strong enough evidence of causation, invalidating in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of many exposures. Although Philip Morris eventually scaled back its GEP programme, as no epidemiological body would agree to such a standard, British American Tobacco still uses this criterion to refute the risk associated with passive smoking.
The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies. For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that Hitler supported some anti- smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as Nazis (even coining the term nico-nazis), even though other senior Nazis were smokers, blocking attempts to disseminate anti-smoking propaganda and ensuring that troops has sufficient supplies of cigarettes. Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environ- mental tobacco smoke (ETS) is carcino- genic, a finding confirmed by many other authoritative national and inter- national public health institutions. The EPA assessment was described by two commentators as an ‘attempt to institutionalize a particular irrational view of the world as the only legitimate perspective, and to replace rationality with dogma as the legitimate basis of public policy’, which they labelled as nothing less than a ‘threat to the very core of democratic values and demo- cratic public policy’. Other fallacies used by denialists are false analogy, exemplified by the argument against evolution that, as the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker and the excluded middle fallacy (either passive smoking causes a wide range of specified diseases or causes none at all, so doubt about an association with one disease, such as breast cancer, is regarded as sufficient to reject an association with any disease).
Responding to denialism
Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fun- damental beliefs. Finally there is eccen- tricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status con- ferred on the maverick by the media.
Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice.
Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.
Faith in science and faith in the modern scientific establishment are two different things. I'm off.
I have faith in neither... I'm more of a 'show me' type...
Most reasonable people consider me a skeptic, it is only being contrasted against denialism presented under the guise of skepticism that makes me appear otherwise.
Skepticism needs to be based on understanding to be meaningful, not merely on disagreement and distrust and feelings of paranoia.
Last edited:
S
sparkjumper
Smilin Bob I was Smilin Bob on icmag a couple years ago.Smile on with that magic stiffy
You know I get paranoid myself after smoking too much strawberry diesel. Don't let them get you.
Mj
LOL. I've actually been a smoking hiatus for about 3 weeks. Too much crap at work and being on call all the time requires a clear mind.
I'll try not to let them get to me. Try not to let them get you over the next few ominous years. Especially, with this "recovery" (lmao) being preached by your political messiah and your corrupted establishment that you have so much faith in. As always, history will be the final arbitrator. I'm fine with that. I'm ready. You believe at your own peril.
peril???
StoneByName
Member
Interesting thread. As it has been said in this thread, careful observation of scientific discoveries is necessary before we can make any assumptions. It is interesting that the results of one study can be used to try and proclaim facts. It is clear that this happens often. Scientific claims cannot be viewed alone without supporting evidence and we must be aware of any possible alternative agendas.
I notice the use of 'science' (the word alone is often enough) in journalism to try and make someone accept an idea as fact. I think a lot of people see the words 'science' and 'fact' as interchangeable. I see newspapers trying to use results from one study as evidence which leads to no consensus and confusion amongst the public. Claiming that correlation is causation also appears to be a common strategy for using science to support ideas. Here's an example of newspapers using skewed interpretations of science to propose and support ideas:
http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/02/19/20-strange-things-the-daily-mail-say-will-cause-cancer/
20 barely scratches the surface by the way...
Even though the idea occurred earlier in the thread, the separation/connection between politics and science reminded me of the dismissal of a UK science advisor to the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked
Nice to see some scientists staying true to their findings and not caving under pressure. Many of his colleagues quit after his dismissal.
Some one mentioned earlier in the thread the danger of paradigms within science leading to the dismissal of some evidence. This idea of competition within the scientific community is hard to investigate. It is a pity that people let egos get in the way of what should be the pursuit of the truth.
I notice the use of 'science' (the word alone is often enough) in journalism to try and make someone accept an idea as fact. I think a lot of people see the words 'science' and 'fact' as interchangeable. I see newspapers trying to use results from one study as evidence which leads to no consensus and confusion amongst the public. Claiming that correlation is causation also appears to be a common strategy for using science to support ideas. Here's an example of newspapers using skewed interpretations of science to propose and support ideas:
http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/02/19/20-strange-things-the-daily-mail-say-will-cause-cancer/
20 barely scratches the surface by the way...
Even though the idea occurred earlier in the thread, the separation/connection between politics and science reminded me of the dismissal of a UK science advisor to the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked
Nice to see some scientists staying true to their findings and not caving under pressure. Many of his colleagues quit after his dismissal.
Some one mentioned earlier in the thread the danger of paradigms within science leading to the dismissal of some evidence. This idea of competition within the scientific community is hard to investigate. It is a pity that people let egos get in the way of what should be the pursuit of the truth.
maryj315
Member
The only individuals I fret about getting to me possess badges and weapons, and I am confident they will not be deliberating for global warming.
At hand appears to be a seriously narrow minded occasionally fantasized view of GW amid skeptics. The research of GW implicates thousands of various analyses administered by several independent science institutions public and privately funded from all the world. Moreover, it did not just transpire yesterday were articulating about 4 decades of research.
Skeptics appear to have this vision that some genius will reach out with an equation like E=MC2 and that will convey the subject of GW to an end.
The science behind climatological research just does not aid the concept of one study or person either confirming or discrediting GW. Skeptics do not appear to recognize the process requiring the same institutions would be the ones who discredit GW. Furthermore, it will not take place overnight.
If a better theory comes along science will accept it and move forward at present they can only give you the best answers their research can provide.
There is a majority of consensus amid scientists that support bigfoot does not exist. They arrived at this conclusion utilizing specialists in the field from different institutions all over the world. Integrating all of their research to arrive at this consensus.
Now think about all the books you have read that attempted to achieve the possibility that such a creature might exist. Every single one of those books and TV programs all have their scientists making the same claim but at no time yielding absolute proof. However, making sure you depart with enough skepticism so that you might doubt the majority of consensus among scientists that such a creature does not exist.
You do not need absolute verification just plant the right seeds of skepticism.
Mj
I
In~Plain~Site
Leaked climate e-mail inquiry to release report
And some people wonder why folks have doubts.
Question everything
And some people wonder why folks have doubts.
Question everything
Which completely vindicates those involved from any wrongdoing
And some people wonder why folks have doubts.
Question everything
I do not wonder at all... the denialism propagators are very good at making much ado about nothing via propaganda. PropagandA designed solely to induce doubt.
YES!!!! QUESTION EVERYTHING!!! KEEP DIGGING UNTIL YOU FIND THE TRUTH...*
Skeptics do not just grab onto whatever "info" supports their assumptions... To call oneself a skeptic, one has to be willing to dig into the deniers claims as hard as one digs into the scientists claims.
If you are only only skeptical of things which go against your prejudices, then you are no skeptic, just a lost denier...
this is not a global warming thread... However... This climategate ignorance epitomizes denialism... NONE of the FOUR independent investigations into climategate revealed anything remotely nefarious. NONE.
The Scientists involved have been vindicated Four times.
So since we noww KNOW FOR SURE that climategate was nothing more mountain made out of a molehill... We can safely drop it from the discussion.
If you have to cherrypick and nitpick to justify your position, then you sorely need to re-evaluate your position. One must consider the big picture.
Now if we can move back to the point where we're solidly on the topic as presented in the original post... AGW is only a portion of the Denialism puzzle... no need to get all sidetracked by non-news concerning one particular branch of science.
Last edited:
I
In~Plain~Site
Amazing what you can glean from an investigation yet to be released.
So what's that, the third independent panel exoneration of the climatologists in question? Oh, I see it's the fourth.
Nothing Amazing at all.
The reports findings have already been leaked and reported on
The entire published report is released today.
No worries
If you doubt what i say, you can read the report for yourself later today...
This came across the AP wire mere moments ago
So can we move along?
- Status
