My problem with "science debates"

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



cdtm
https://simplystatistics.org/2015/06/24/how-public-relations-and-the-media-are-distorting-science/







tl:dr breakdown: Most of us get our "talking points" from some media outlet. Media generally put priorty on getting people to read/buy their shit, and so will often snip/distort/spin a story for us idiot laymen.

And that media filtered garbage is what often gets discussed. The scientists sure aren't stepping up and saying "Hey, that's not what I told the New York Times/Fox News".

And those scientists who DO speak, are usually media whoring themselves to sell books.

Let.me try an example of what I'm talking about: You know how shareholder value came to become the ONLY purpose of a publically held business? How nothing else matters but returning value to investors?

Yeah, the guy who invented the concept said they took it too far. But the media, pr firms, talk show people, publicity hounds ect all went with the extreme option of "Shareholders ONLY" because it caught peoples interest. Nobody tried to set the record straight.. No one cared.

And that's how "The machine" works. It's all just turning honest science into "Rich Dad/Poor Dad" publicity for public consumption.

That's what we all "debate" usually (Unless you're a real scientist and talking about your field, or follow peer reviewed journals and know how to read them. But if you were, would you be debating on Twitter?)

Beniboybling
i am a real peer reviewed scientist and I take offence.

riv6672
You mean 'offense'.

'Offence' is a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act.

Bashar Teg
nah fam they're both correct.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/offence-offense/

with that said, i prefer 'offense'.

ArtificialGlory
Grammar nazis offencerise me.

Beniboybling
thumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah fam they're both correct.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/offence-offense/

with that said, i prefer 'offense'.

#seniormoments

Henry_Pym
I just generally dislike appeals to authority, because authority are people. It's like wacky these days to think a new study on _____ could be flawed or wrong.

Kinda off the topic, but always look at who is putting forward and promoting new science.

komal
Book event tickets hassle free on Tixdo.com

Surtur

Adam_PoE
https://media.tenor.com/images/6bdcae3168952b2aa1bc60c0af7b9802/tenor.gif

Surtur
They should make these bracelets that say "I <3 science". They would probably sell like hot cakes.

Bashar Teg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYlnvCFUsAEXabe.png

Beniboybling
I would think that if conservatives are so suddenly interested in what scientists are saying they should read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I would think that if conservatives are so suddenly interested in what scientists are saying they should read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

I would think this goes both ways and that liberals would be interested in what scientists are saying about these issues that might contradict their own narratives.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I would think that if conservatives are so suddenly interested in what scientists are saying they should read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
Hmm.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/03/is-anything-wrong-with-natural-non-man-made-climate-change/#7e029ea4474e

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

---

Do you think global warming will continue for indefinite period? Do you rule out natural causes of global warming with full confidence? Do you rule out the possibility of "natural developments" to halt it at some point? Do you think we control this planet and its mechanisms?

Remember the "ozone hole" story?

Ozone hole expands every year above Antarctica during Summer and shrinks during Winter - this now seems to be a natural construct in large part.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

However....

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
I would think this goes both ways and that liberals would be interested in what scientists are saying about these issues that might contradict their own narratives. Not a narrative darling, but a study, backed up by fifteen years of research data. For the moment I am sticking with that as opposed to one random paper.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Not a narrative darling, but a study, backed up by fifteen years of research data. For the moment I am sticking with that as opposed to one random paper.
My dear, it takes a single study to invalidate a well-established research over the course of years. Not every scientist is politically motivated or into narrative-building.

The "ozone hole" (scare) story is a good example of politics and narrative-building effort in regards to environment and climatic conditions.

Beniboybling
Right, well I'll wait for that day. Not holding my breath though. sick

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, well I'll wait for that day. Not holding my breath though. sick
Sure.

The "ozone hole" puzzle is almost solved.

Global warming is next. Some scientists are already skeptical.

Interesting studies:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/11101.full.pdf
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/full/391141a0.html
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-4/causes-2.php

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Not a narrative darling, but a study, backed up by fifteen years of research data. For the moment I am sticking with that as opposed to one random paper.

You coulda just saved yourself some trouble and said "it's different cuz reasons".

Beniboybling
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Sure.

The "ozone hole" puzzle is almost solved.

Global warming is next. Some scientists are already skeptical.

Interesting studies:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/11101.full.pdf
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/full/391141a0.html
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-4/causes-2.php Right. No. The fact that the ozone hole didn't turn out to be a disaster isn't grounds for being complacent about climate change. In fact it's the opposite given as your article statesmessedo thank god we took action, eh?

S_W_LeGenD
Another: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/revisiting-the-younger-dryas/

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
You coulda just saved yourself some trouble and said "it's different cuz reasons". It's different because the study I cited is more rigorous, yeah.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Another: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/revisiting-the-younger-dryas/ Can you summarise what these studies are supposed to prove, pally?

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right. No. The fact that the ozone hole didn't turn out to be a disaster isn't grounds for being complacent about climate change. In fact it's the opposite given as your article statesmessedo thank god we took action, eh?
roll eyes (sarcastic)

That was model-based projection. And models can be wrong.

Ozone hole expands during Summer season and shortens during Winter season - it is a natural phenomenon. Comprehension problems?

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Can you summarise what these studies are supposed to prove, pally?
You claim to be a peer-reviewed expert. Go through those studies and tell us.

I am citing them for a reason - to make a point.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
roll eyes (sarcastic)

That was model-based projection. And models can be wrong.

Ozone hole expands during Summer season and shortens during Winter season - it is a natural phenomenon. Comprehension problems? None at all mate. In particular, I understand that this is not mutually exclusive with the existence of ozone depleting substances.

The only thing I'm struggling to comprehend is why you can't work this out, when the article you linked explains it plainly. erm

Beniboybling
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You claim to be a peer-reviewed expert. Go through those studies and tell us.
lmao

What did I tell you about PEEing on the page?

S_W_LeGenD

Surtur
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You claim to be a peer-reviewed expert. Go through those studies and tell us.

I am citing them for a reason - to make a point.

I feel I should tell you it doesn't matter what you say lol. It's not going to make any difference.

Beniboybling
No, like I said I understand it fine. Ozone holes are a natural phenomena yes, but they are still effected by ozone depleting substances like CFCs. Neither sources you've cited deny that, in fact both support it explictly. Therefore the Montreal Protocol was not just a feel-good exercise, but a valid effort to protect the environment that could see the ozone hole heal completely, as opposed to expand by 40%. erm

None of this doing anything to justify complacency on the climate change issue, which again the article you cited, warns against.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
I feel I should tell you it doesn't matter what you say lol. It's not going to make any difference. That's right Surt, your attempt to push your narrative has failed so best get in there with the quips - while relying on a creationist to prop it up. sick

S_W_LeGenD

Beniboybling
Right, so no contradiction. Are we done now?

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, so no contradiction. Are we done now?
If you think CFC were responsible for creation of Ozone Holes - you are wrong.

If you think Montreal Protocol can prevent Ozone Holes from re-emerging - you are wrong.

Ozone Holes form and heal (naturally) subject to natural causes - CFC in the picture or not. There is no established correlation in this regard.

No harm in being eco-friendly but you cannot be allowed to paint natural phenomenon as man-made constructs.

Beniboybling
Uhuh, I've explained my position quite clearly LeG and it's supported by all the evidence you've provided. At this point, you're just arguing with yourself, while entirely detracting from the actual topic. thumb up

S_W_LeGenD

Beniboybling
Right, I get that you have this bad habit of spamming the same shit over and over regardless of what is said in response so I'm just gonna finish with an "OK bro", and let you do you.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, I get that you have this bad habit of spamming the same shit over and over so I'm just gonna finish with an "OK bro".
I am not spamming same shit over and over again but trying to get across your thick skull the fact that no correlation is visible between "curbing of CPC" and "the formation and depletion of Ozone Hole" because it is - the study of Molina and Sherwood (1974) turned out wrong.

Montreal Protocol might be a genuine effort to 'save the planet' in regards to Ozone Hole phenomenon but its formulation and depletion is natural as explained in this blog: https://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ozone-below-the-hole.png.

- and observed in later years: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/26/did-we-really-save-the-ozone-layer/

Now, this doesn't imply that we stop being responsible but we cannot be stupid either.

We did not 'save the planet' with implementation of Montreal Protocol because we misunderstood a natural phenomenon in the first place.

Anybody with a functioning brain will get the idea by now. You on the other hand...

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Beniboybling
OK bro

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
We did not 'save the planet' with implementation of Montreal Protocol because we misunderstood a natural phenomenon in the first place.
Point is that we did not 'save the planet' with implementation of Montreal Protocol because we misunderstood a natural phenomenon (i.e. Ozone Hole) as a man-made construct on the basis of the study of Molina and Sherwood - it was/is not.

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No, like I said I understand it fine. Ozone holes are a natural phenomena yes, but they are still effected by ozone depleting substances like CFCs. Neither sources you've cited deny that, in fact both support it explictly. Therefore the Montreal Protocol was not just a feel-good exercise, but a valid effort to protect the environment that could see the ozone hole heal completely, as opposed to expand by 40%. erm

None of this doing anything to justify complacency on the climate change issue, which again the article you cited, warns against.

What don't you understand, Beni? Carbon Dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane all occur naturally, therefore we should have no concerns that our (humanity's) actions produce extremely large quantities of the gases. The logic and science there is sound.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Robtard
What don't you understand, Beni? Carbon Dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane all occur naturally, therefore we should have no concerns that our (humanity's) actions produce extremely large quantities of the gases. The logic and science there is sound.
Curbing pollution is important for our health and ensuring a healthy environment - not just for "saving the planet."

I cited the example of Ozone Hole to highlight the fact that we can mistakenly assume a perfectly natural environmental phenomenon as a man-made construct (and) scientific studies are not infallible.

The Younger Dryas event (1400 years period of global cooling) suggests that worldwide rise in CO2 emissions do not necessarily correlate with global warming trend - I have cited relevant studies in this thread.

Shift to eco-friendly practices is a good thing but we need to be pragmatic about it - we need to keep 'economics' in mind while we are at it. Modern civilizations are the outcome of fossil fuel industry - keep this fact in mind.

If you want to be extremely eco-friendly then shift to jungle and stop using modern tools for livelihood.

My disagreement is with the politics of environmental phenomenon - based on studies that argue that an environmental phenomenon (perceived as a danger to mankind) is a man-made construct. There are scientists who are not politically motivated and have conducted studies that suggest otherwise in each case.

Beniboybling
Did you know that renewable energy is already becoming cheaper and more sustainable than fossils fuels? Neat, huh.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Robtard
What don't you understand, Beni? Carbon Dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane all occur naturally, therefore we should have no concerns that our (humanity's) actions produce extremely large quantities of the gases. The logic and science there is sound. #chinesehoax

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Did you know that renewable energy is already becoming cheaper and more sustainable than fossils fuels? Neat, huh.
That is good.

---

I would love to make my home off-grid one day when I have ample funds.

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Did you know that renewable energy is already becoming cheaper and more sustainable than fossils fuels? Neat, huh.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
#chinesehoax

Funny thing those two post above, China is investing high-end billion into renewable energy, their renewable energy markets are outpacing their fossil and nuclear ones and China is the current world leader in electrical production from renewable outlets.

They're looking towards the future, I wonder why.

cdtm
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
That is good.

---

I would love to make my home off-grid one day when I have ample funds.

Long as the feds don't catch wind, and decide to shut you down.

It happens. They have so many regulations, they can usually get you for something.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Robtard
Funny thing those two post above, China is investing high-end billion into renewable energy, their renewable energy markets are outpacing their fossil and nuclear ones and China is the current world leader in electrical production from renewable outlets.

They're looking towards the future, I wonder why. Right, and yet people continue to cite China as an excuse for their complacency.

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, and yet people continue to cite China as an excuse for their complacency.

When the shitty air over Beijing starts to clear up some and China's positioned itself as the world leader in low-cost clean energy exports, it will be the Chinese who will be laughing

Beniboybling
no, I'm sure china will be unable to compete with american coal, which will bring back millions of jawbs. sad

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
no, I'm sure china will be unable to compete with american coal, which will bring back millions of jawbs. sad

History shows that there are always people unwilling to let go of the old ways, be it when electrical power and the internal combustion engine was replacing steam as the standard power source or when the automobile was starting to replace the horse.

"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad." -Some old White idiot Circa 1903

Surtur

Robtard
Coal's not going away tomorrow, neither is nuclear. The idea that investing in renewable energy nigh-insta makes old energy sources magically go away is something the anti clean(er) energy people push and then attack for its obvious nonsense, because they're scum.

But there's no reason why something like solar and wind can't supplement existing power sources now and eventually replace them more and more down the road as technology progresses. What China is doing right now with investing 350+ billion in renewable technologies.

eg We still use steam power in some applications. Is it the dominant like it was 100+ years ago? No, it is not.

eg the internal gasoline and diesel combustion engine isn't going away anytime soon. But other cleaner sources will replace portions of vehicles in use, like we're seeing right now with electric and hydrogen

ps LoL @ your newsouce though

Beniboybling
Lmfao, found this article on Baby Trump's emails while checking out the site:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/trump-jr-releases-emails-they-support-his-account.php

Some gems:Could they cuck for Trump any harder? laughing out loud

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Lmfao, found this article on Baby Trump's emails while checking out the site:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/trump-jr-releases-emails-they-support-his-account.php

Some gems:Could they cuck for Trump any harder? laughing out loud

I didn't mean to trigger you with the link Beni, my bad.

Beniboybling
No need to apologise Surt, as I've said before your always good for some laughs.

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No need to apologise Surt, as I've said before your always good for some laughs.

Good for a few laughs? You and I have more in common than I thought.

Btw: you're, not your.

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Lmfao, found this article on Baby Trump's emails while checking out the site:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/trump-jr-releases-emails-they-support-his-account.php

Some gems:Could they cuck for Trump any harder? laughing out loud

I like how they entirely bash the idea of collusion and then propose to know what little Donnie might have been assuming and then add 'we don't know'. Wouldn't that unknown possibility then also apply equally to collusion? Yes it would, if we're being intellectually honest

Yes they most certainly can cuck and will cuck much harder, just wait if (until?) the collusion bears fruit. They'll switch the narrative to: "So he colluded with Russia, who cares if it was to make America great again!" #maga

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by cdtm
Long as the feds don't catch wind, and decide to shut you down.

It happens. They have so many regulations, they can usually get you for something.
Oh, I didn't think about that. sad

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.