Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Dems More Fearful Of Virus...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Because it was a record low at a time of year when such lows values are rare. That makes it a newsworthy event in terms of the study of Ozone in the atmosphere. The fact that the removal of CFC's from refrigerants have made huge difference in the ANTARCTIC hole is simply a fact.
    A huge difference? Citations?
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone

    (Did you notice this was a hole in the ARCTIC Ozone, not the ANTARCTIC?).
    Obviously

    The cause of this ozone hole is more related to changes in the northern polar circulation amplifying the effect of what CFC's are left in the atmosphere along with other natural consequences of the shift in circulation.
    Which goes back to my first rebuttal, that the world has not headed off a disaster. There is always another one looming around the corner for alarmists to latch onto.

    And the issue is that your point in the post I replied to was how stupid they were for contradicting themselves - which they didn't. You just didn't understand what they were saying.
    And I explained how they are contradicting themselves, which you continue to ignore.

    Which is ironic given the zeal with which you and others were clamoring on about how stupid scientists are.
    I never claimed they are stupid. In fact, they are very clever in how they play the media and the susceptible in their quest for greater funding.

    ETA: This shift in circulation is taking us over to the other reason this is important - and it's not a 'failure' related to the intended effect of the removal of CFC's.

    It's called climate change.
    Queue up the next bogeyman.
    Last edited by Ronson; 05-12-2020, 04:41 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
      Starbright just agreed it was a poorly-written article. They're saying there's nothing to worry about, but it is "concerning." So you can keep your haughtiness.
      Says the fellow drowning in the mistake he made parading his own haughtiness.

      And it serves you right too. One of the most common effects of the anti-science sentiment circulating in Evangelical circles is the myth that scientists are actually stupid and can't figure out the most 'obvious' things. I used to see this every day in Nat Sci when the latest fellow high on some AIG video would come in with his new found 'knowledge' thinking it would be a piece of cake to shoot down all that foolish 'evolution' stuff.

      To be a leading scientist in an area of research typically means you have a very, very high IQ and the guts to tough it out training at the highest levels that natural gift for the better part of a decade or more just to get started. And it is really pretty silly to think that some video aimed and a 7th grade education (or other internet source of similar depth) touting a very ideologically constrained summary of some basic scientific points is going topple the current thought on evolution or climate change or astrophysics or whatever. And If one reads something published by leading researchers in a field of study one does not have a good deal of study in one's self and it seems a bit amiss, the most likely conclusion should be that the reader is missing something, not that the writer screwed up.

      That is why I went back and checked. It seemed very unlikely to me such an article on a NASA climate website would actually be self-contradictory, though I'm not saying such a thing would be impossible.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Says the fellow drowning in the mistake he made parading his own haughtiness.
        Pffft

        And it serves you right too. One of the most common effects of the anti-science sentiment circulating in Evangelical circles is the myth that scientists are actually stupid and can't figure out the most 'obvious' things. I used to see this every day in Nat Sci when the latest fellow high on some AIG video would come in with his new found 'knowledge' thinking it would be a piece of cake to shoot down all that foolish 'evolution' stuff.
        Whatever. If you are accusing me of being an Evangelical, you are incorrect. Must be contagious around here.

        To be a leading scientist in an area of research typically means you have a very, very high IQ and the guts to tough it out training at the highest levels that natural gift for the better part of a decade or more just to get started. And it is really pretty silly to think that some video aimed and a 7th grade education (or other internet source of similar depth) touting a very ideologically constrained summary of some basic scientific points is going topple the current thought on evolution or climate change or astrophysics or whatever. And If one reads something published by leading researchers in a field of study one does not have a good deal of study in one's self and it seems a bit amiss, the most likely conclusion should be that the reader is missing something, not that the writer screwed up.

        That is why I went back and checked. It seemed very unlikely to me such an article on a NASA climate website would actually be self-contradictory, though I'm not saying such a thing would be impossible.
        NASA's sloppy and transparent quest for funding is clear from a mile off. Have you seen their list of agencies of "scientific" consensus for Climate Change? They included the AMA. Medical doctors are not trained or qualified to concur on that subject. But it doesn't matter to NASA. They wanted padding and they threw them onto the list. Next we should see podiatrists, chiropractors and phrenologists being added.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
          Pffft



          Whatever. If you are accusing me of being an Evangelical, you are incorrect. Must be contagious around here.
          You certainly are swaggering wrt to science in ways I find more common in evangelical circles (of which I am one by the way). So my apologies if that is offensive to you.


          NASA's sloppy and transparent quest for funding is clear from a mile off. Have you seen their list of agencies of "scientific" consensus for Climate Change? They included the AMA. Medical doctors are not trained or qualified to concur on that subject. But it doesn't matter to NASA. They wanted padding and they threw them onto the list. Next we should see podiatrists, chiropractors and phrenologists being added.
          But I do see that even though you may not be "Evangelical', you carry with you a similar sort of anti-science sentiment. But lets stop with the over-generalizations. Maybe you are quite the savvy fellow and just missed it on this one article. Let's leave it at that then - shall we? You goofed up this time. But we can move on and you'll have lots of other chances to get it right.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            You certainly are swaggering wrt to science in ways I find more common in evangelical circles (of which I am one by the way). So my apologies if that is offensive to you.
            I was reminded of Juvenal and his conclusion jumping.

            But I do see that even though you may not be "Evangelical', you carry with you a similar sort of anti-science sentiment.
            And you continue to ignore my point and insist on making assumptions. I said - in so many words - there is a quest for funding at NASA and other science agencies that causes them to act inappropriately. You may call that "anti-science sentiment" with as much negative spin as you can muster.

            But lets stop with the over-generalizations. Maybe you are quite the savvy fellow and just missed it on this one article. Let's leave it at that then - shall we? You goofed up this time. But we can move on and you'll have lots of other chances to get it right.
            Yes, you completely missed my point and perhaps you are usually more observant. We'll leave it at that.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
              I was reminded of Juvenal and his conclusion jumping.



              And you continue to ignore my point and insist on making assumptions. I said - in so many words - there is a quest for funding at NASA and other science agencies that causes them to act inappropriately. You may call that "anti-science sentiment" with as much negative spin as you can muster.
              Perhaps, but not in the article you picked


              Yes, you completely missed my point and perhaps you are usually more observant. We'll leave it at that.
              touché
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                I even posted an article straight from NASA - quoting NASA - where they contradicting themselves.
                I've seen a lot worse before from NASA's own press releases. Particularly memorable was one article that was based on the fact that the earth and sun both had magnetic fields and that therefore at some distance between the two they cancelled out, and someone had managed to do a write-up of this that made it sound like this absence of magnetic field was a wormhole one could fly a spaceship through star-trek style. I can only assume NASA employs 16 year old unpaid interns to write its news releases.

                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                At the end of your linked article: "Scientists have already seen the first definitive proof of ozone recovery, observing a 20 percent decrease in ozone depletion during the winter months from 2005 to 2016... Models predict that the Antarctic ozone layer will mostly recover by 2040."

                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                I said - in so many words - there is a quest for funding at NASA and other science agencies that causes them to act inappropriately.
                I doubt this is a cause. I commonly see non-scientists on this board making a lot of inaccurate assumptions about how funding works in science and how it affects things.

                Typically science funding doesn't affect outcomes and doesn't typically bias the results in the vast majority of cases.* The majority of scientists just have salaried jobs that pay them like any other full-time worker to simply turn up at work and do their jobs. So they aren't themselves affected much financially by the outcomes of their research (any financial success from their research would go to the company/institution/shareholders they work for, not them as individuals). Most of the rest spend time writing funding applications to scientific groups where they explain what it is they intend to research in the future, and how they propose to do this, and those applications will then be reviewed by expert scientists who will judge if that is worth researching or not and award grants accordingly. This then funds their future research, but it does so regardless of outcomes (which they obviously don't know at the time they write the grant proposals), and the proposals are designed to be read by experts not the general public. Writing articles for the general public isn't a feature of science-funding processes. One could argue that science journalism is as bad as it is precisely because there's literally no financial incentive whatsoever for any scientists to care about it.

                Rather than having anything to do with funding, NASA doing poor and inaccurate news releases is far more likely to just be a case of an incompetent person writing their news articles, probably a person with a journalism background and not a science one.

                * The one, rare, exception I would point to is when private companies specifically fund a small number of scientists to do a specific study with the goal of a specific outcome. e.g. when a tobacco company pays a scientist to run a study aimed to show that smoking Totally Doesn't Cause Cancer, or when an oil company wants to do a study to show that Climate Change Isn't Happening.
                Last edited by Starlight; 05-12-2020, 06:36 PM.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  I've seen a lot worse before from NASA's own press releases. Particularly memorable was one article that was based on the fact that the earth and sun both had magnetic fields and that therefore at some distance between the two they cancelled out, and someone had managed to do a write-up of this that made it sound like this absence of magnetic field was a wormhole one could fly a spaceship through star-trek style. I can only assume NASA employs 16 year old unpaid interns to write its news releases.
                  I pointed out elsewhere that NASA included the AMA on a list of scientific organizations that concur with Climate Change, just to pad it out and make it more impressive. There were also other improbables on that list.

                  At the end of your linked article: "Scientists have already seen the first definitive proof of ozone recovery, observing a 20 percent decrease in ozone depletion during the winter months from 2005 to 2016... Models predict that the Antarctic ozone layer will mostly recover by 2040."

                  I doubt this is a cause. I commonly see non-scientists on this board making a lot of inaccurate assumptions about how funding works in science and how it affects things.

                  Typically science funding doesn't affect outcomes and doesn't typically bias the results in the vast majority of cases.
                  I was suggesting the reverse, that outcomes influence funding. If an outcome can look foreboding (or made to look that way) then the agencies can use that as leverage for more funding. "An asteroid may hit earth next year. We need to examine this further ... if only ..."

                  The majority of scientists just have salaried jobs that pay them like any other full-time worker to simply turn up at work and do their jobs. So they aren't themselves affected much financially by the outcomes of their research (any financial success from their research would go to the company/institution/shareholders they work for, not them as individuals). Most of the rest spend time writing funding applications to scientific groups where they explain what it is they intend to research in the future, and how they propose to do this, and those applications will then be reviewed by expert scientists who will judge if that is worth researching or not and award grants accordingly. This then funds their future research, but it does so regardless of outcomes (which they obviously don't know at the time they write the grant proposals), and the proposals are designed to be read by experts not the general public.
                  I don't believe NASA works that way. Funding is included in the federal budget.

                  Writing articles for the general public isn't a feature of science-funding processes. One could argue that science journalism is as bad as it is precisely because there's literally no financial incentive whatsoever for any scientists to care about it.[

                  Rather than having anything to do with funding, NASA doing poor and inaccurate news releases is far more likely to just be a case of an incompetent person writing their news articles, probably a person with a journalism background and not a science one.

                  * The one, rare, exception I would point to is when private companies specifically fund a small number of scientists to do a specific study with the goal of a specific outcome. e.g. when a tobacco company pays a scientist to run a study aimed to show that smoking Totally Doesn't Cause Cancer, or when an oil company wants to do a study to show that Climate Change Isn't Happening.
                  Last edited by Ronson; 05-12-2020, 07:59 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                    I was suggesting the reverse, that outcomes influence funding.
                    Which is equally untrue with respect to the vast majority of scientists.

                    If an outcome can look foreboding (or made to look that way) then the agencies can use that as leverage for more funding.
                    I would assume that in the US system the specific agency makes an oral and written case within the committee. Such a case would focus on what their objectives are and what the agency is doing.

                    It would certainly not involve deliberately writing inaccurate public articles about random projects. I've got a good imagination, and love fantasy books, but the idea that they write these awful articles deliberately to try and get funding... no, just no, that's not something I can imagine. That's not how science funding works. That's not how grant applications work. That's not how government funding works. Deceiving random members of the public through poorly written articles isn't a path to more funding.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                      Pffft
                      I love it. No more need be said!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
                        ...but the idea that they write these awful articles deliberately to try and get funding... no, just no, that's not something I can imagine. That's not how science funding works. That's not how grant applications work. That's not how government funding works. Deceiving random members of the public through poorly written articles isn't a path to more funding.
                        That's exactly how government funding works, because the more you can get the public to panic, the less they will question the government irresponsibly throwing money at the next "turn lead into gold" scam.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          That's exactly how government funding works, because the more you can get the public to panic, the less they will question the government irresponsibly throwing money at the next "turn lead into gold" scam.
                          It's possible that elected politicians could work in conjunction with media outlets to deliberately stoke an environment of fear. e.g. The Republican party + Fox News & Breitbart.

                          But the reasons for doing so are typically to win elections (e.g. being afraid makes people vote more right-wing), or, occasionally in other countries, paving the way to seizing dictatorial power through manufactured crises.

                          And right-wing governments have a tendency to cut funding to most branches of government. The only government department that would typically benefit in funding due to fear would be the Department of Defence.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                          6 responses
                          45 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post whag
                          by whag
                           
                          Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                          42 responses
                          231 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post whag
                          by whag
                           
                          Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                          24 responses
                          104 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Ronson
                          by Ronson
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                          32 responses
                          176 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                          73 responses
                          307 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Working...
                          X