Crosswords0 min ago
Will We Listen To 11,000 Random Internet Users?
Anyone who read or responded to spath's thread https:/
will know what this is about.
There were no 11,000 scientists, there was no scientific report, there is no Alliance of World Scientists or whatever the author claimed to represent.
will know what this is about.
There were no 11,000 scientists, there was no scientific report, there is no Alliance of World Scientists or whatever the author claimed to represent.
Answers
We were duped. I didn’t read any of the articles, but I saw the headlines and believed it to be an authentic study. It wasn’t. It is only 4 pages long (1 of those is just charts). It was easy to debunk this story, and the fact that its central claim was wrong. Each media outlet that lazily used this material should print a update, and clarify that it was 11,000...
13:18 Sun 10th Nov 2019
jim states there was literally no scrutiny to the 31000 list, However there was a four stage system to verify the 11000 list. I wonder then how apart from Miky mouse there appeared, according to an Australian senator, the names of a natuopath, hypnotist, industrial designer, commercial business analyst and a psychologist. It makes me wonder just how rigorous the four stage check was and what else they've got wrong, if they cannot even compile an accurate list of scientists.
//Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life,...//
That's probably because throughout my lifetime and no doubt a lot longer than that "intellectuals" have constantly attempted to scare the population witless by various "forecasts" of the doom that mankind has in store. This has stretched from nuclear Armageddon if we utilise nuclear fuels, through the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?) which was going to enlarge so that all of mankind would have been burnt to death, to warnings of various pandemics of untreatable diseases that would wipe out all life. None has materialised. So it is no wonder that the latest scientific bandwagon continues winding the thread of "anti-intellectualism" to which Mr Asimov refers. Remember the little boy who cried wolf?
That's probably because throughout my lifetime and no doubt a lot longer than that "intellectuals" have constantly attempted to scare the population witless by various "forecasts" of the doom that mankind has in store. This has stretched from nuclear Armageddon if we utilise nuclear fuels, through the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?) which was going to enlarge so that all of mankind would have been burnt to death, to warnings of various pandemics of untreatable diseases that would wipe out all life. None has materialised. So it is no wonder that the latest scientific bandwagon continues winding the thread of "anti-intellectualism" to which Mr Asimov refers. Remember the little boy who cried wolf?
Anyone can put a name on a list and claim to be a scientist.
Not a long Video as some posted by our dear friend Theland, but worth viewing and being enlightened by the truth.
https:/
Hans.
Not a long Video as some posted by our dear friend Theland, but worth viewing and being enlightened by the truth.
https:/
Hans.
Jim says climate scientists have been around for over a hundred years, decades in another post. They've been around for centuries but never indulged in the global warming fraud.
As little as 50 years ago they were predicting the New Ice Age (which was going to coincide with oil running out in 2,000)
So you'll have to forgive us for not taking everything the clowns say as Gospel.
As little as 50 years ago they were predicting the New Ice Age (which was going to coincide with oil running out in 2,000)
So you'll have to forgive us for not taking everything the clowns say as Gospel.
Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances. Think about that for a moment.
Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols. In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…..CO2 levels were the same then as they are now. How come? the glow bulls hadn't stampeded all over the World, frightening the children and emotionally challenged. The poor souls find accuracy a hugely upsetting condition and are determined to get rid of it.
https:/
Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols. In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…..CO2 levels were the same then as they are now. How come? the glow bulls hadn't stampeded all over the World, frightening the children and emotionally challenged. The poor souls find accuracy a hugely upsetting condition and are determined to get rid of it.
https:/
We were duped. I didn’t read any of the articles, but I saw the headlines and believed it to be an authentic study.
It wasn’t. It is only 4 pages long (1 of those is just charts). It was easy to debunk this story, and the fact that its central claim was wrong.
Each media outlet that lazily used this material should print a update, and clarify that it was 11,000 anybodys, not scientists.
If Ezra Lavant is ring bells, he is the financer of convicted thug and fraudster, Tommy Robinson. He was the first to meet him on his release from jail for contempt of Court.
It wasn’t. It is only 4 pages long (1 of those is just charts). It was easy to debunk this story, and the fact that its central claim was wrong.
Each media outlet that lazily used this material should print a update, and clarify that it was 11,000 anybodys, not scientists.
If Ezra Lavant is ring bells, he is the financer of convicted thug and fraudster, Tommy Robinson. He was the first to meet him on his release from jail for contempt of Court.
Some interesting names here. Eminent names even. Eminent in their field of research and knowledge. Climate issues.
https:/
https:/
// I didn't say that, mozz, although I wouldn't be surprised if they 'helped' them down.
I will say that anyone who believes they flip-flopped up the cliff face is a *** moron. //
I doubt anyone thinks they flip flopped up...
The walruses were exhibiting a behaviour called "hauling-out", where they go on dry land or sea ice for several different purposes including birth, moulting, rest. Apparently land sites are becoming more common as sea ice sites are decreasing...due to warming sea temperatures. The sites in the BBC documentary are well known to locals and scientists.
So...they did find their way up there. Why some went over the cliffs is the debatable question, with several possibilities.
I will say that anyone who believes they flip-flopped up the cliff face is a *** moron. //
I doubt anyone thinks they flip flopped up...
The walruses were exhibiting a behaviour called "hauling-out", where they go on dry land or sea ice for several different purposes including birth, moulting, rest. Apparently land sites are becoming more common as sea ice sites are decreasing...due to warming sea temperatures. The sites in the BBC documentary are well known to locals and scientists.
So...they did find their way up there. Why some went over the cliffs is the debatable question, with several possibilities.
// This has stretched from nuclear Armageddon if we utilise nuclear fuels, through the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?) which was going to enlarge so that all of mankind would have been burnt to death, to warnings of various pandemics of untreatable diseases that would wipe out all life. None has materialised. //
You are, as I'm sure you are no doubt aware, taking the exact wrong lessons from every single one of these cases:
1. The hole in the Ozone layer was a serious issue, caused by human activity. Once this was noticed, and then the cause (CFCs) understood, governments across the world took action to drastically reduce CFC use. As a result the size of the hole has stopped increasing and even shrunk somewhat in recent years. Crisis averted by taking threat seriously, and then appropriate action taken.
2. In the first place I don't think that anyone has seriously suggested that use of nuclear fuels in itself would cause Armageddon, but all the same, most Nuclear Power stations have extremely stringent safety measures, in part because of cases such as Chernobyl and Fukushima where things *did* go wrong. Again, the idea that ignoring the threat was the appropriate response is completely wrong.
3. There is, as far as I am aware, no disease that has genuinely threatened to break into a serious pandemic. But overcaution has helped to reduce the risk, by responding as aggressively as possible to Ebola or flu outbreaks in an effort to contain them. Contrast the modern approach to deadly diseases with, say, the Black Death, or the Spanish Flu of 1918-19. In both cases medical technology was simply incapable of dealing with the disease, and as a result the death toll ran into the tens of millions.
I cannot emphasise enough just how naive and ignorant the sense of NJ's post is. The lesson in each case is the exact opposite to the one that he's trying to draw. Be they environmental, medical or technological threats, humanity has dealt with these threats by tackling them rather than ignoring them.
You are, as I'm sure you are no doubt aware, taking the exact wrong lessons from every single one of these cases:
1. The hole in the Ozone layer was a serious issue, caused by human activity. Once this was noticed, and then the cause (CFCs) understood, governments across the world took action to drastically reduce CFC use. As a result the size of the hole has stopped increasing and even shrunk somewhat in recent years. Crisis averted by taking threat seriously, and then appropriate action taken.
2. In the first place I don't think that anyone has seriously suggested that use of nuclear fuels in itself would cause Armageddon, but all the same, most Nuclear Power stations have extremely stringent safety measures, in part because of cases such as Chernobyl and Fukushima where things *did* go wrong. Again, the idea that ignoring the threat was the appropriate response is completely wrong.
3. There is, as far as I am aware, no disease that has genuinely threatened to break into a serious pandemic. But overcaution has helped to reduce the risk, by responding as aggressively as possible to Ebola or flu outbreaks in an effort to contain them. Contrast the modern approach to deadly diseases with, say, the Black Death, or the Spanish Flu of 1918-19. In both cases medical technology was simply incapable of dealing with the disease, and as a result the death toll ran into the tens of millions.
I cannot emphasise enough just how naive and ignorant the sense of NJ's post is. The lesson in each case is the exact opposite to the one that he's trying to draw. Be they environmental, medical or technological threats, humanity has dealt with these threats by tackling them rather than ignoring them.
A secondary problem of NJ's post is the idea that the "ozone hole was going to enlarge so that mankind would burn to death". This is either a deliberate exaggeration or, more likely, dodgy recall of what was in any case media overhyping. The correct scientific picture is rather closer to this: at pre-1989 levels of CFC emission (and increase in emission rate), then the ozone layer would have probably depleted by about 70% (+/-10%) worldwide by the middle of the 21st Century. This would have led to large increases in rates of skin cancer, and it's likely that plant and animal life would also have been negatively affected in a similar way, but what's rather important is that the world and humanity would certainly not have "burned".
In summary, then, NJ has exaggerated the scale of the threat, ignored the necessity of taking the true scale seriously, and overlooked the effects of doing so that have in many cases avoided or even reversed that threat. It is not possible to be any more wrong.
In summary, then, NJ has exaggerated the scale of the threat, ignored the necessity of taking the true scale seriously, and overlooked the effects of doing so that have in many cases avoided or even reversed that threat. It is not possible to be any more wrong.
It doesn't matter if it is mockery or not. If misinformation isn't corrected then it propagates. What's that old saying about lies travelling halfway around the world before the truth has had time to put its shoes on? Whether NJ was intending to "lie", or was merely using poetic licence, both his facts and the lessons he draws from them are utterly wrong.
I have a nephew who claims to be a scientist and alleges that he is a qualified Fartologist ; having graduated from the University of Shitlong in, I believe he said, China or some other Asiatic country.
Anyway, it is his opinion that it is a lot of bull that cow farts contribute in any way to global warming and the whole theory stinks.
Hans.
Anyway, it is his opinion that it is a lot of bull that cow farts contribute in any way to global warming and the whole theory stinks.
Hans.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.