Originally posted by lemon lime What you appear to be overlooking is the fact that when scientists were talking about global cooling there were [b]no scientists talking about global warming.[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Not true. See the Wikipedia article.
Are you kidding me? Assuming you were alive at that time and keeping up with current events, do you recall hearing conflicting news stories or anything about global warming when global cooling was in the news? Maybe sonhouse remembers... he might be the only other one here with an interest in science who would be aware of what was actually being written and reported on back then.
Originally posted by lemon lime So if global warming is real,..
See, you are a denier.
... then why was no one talking about it before environmentalists were able to make it into an issue? Scientists were. Where do you think the environmentalists learned about it from?
What is most interesting about this conversation however is your conspiracy theory mindset. You aren't arguing that global warming isn't happening based on actual data. You are arguing it based on your personal perception of news reports over the last 50 years or so.
Originally posted by lemon lime Are you kidding me? Assuming you were alive at that time and keeping up with current events, do you recall hearing conflicting news stories or anything about global warming when global cooling was in the news? Maybe sonhouse remembers... he might be the only other one here with an interest in science who would be aware of what was actually being written and reported on back then.
You don't need to have been alive, or to rely on memory. Just Google it. Or has Google been bought too? And did someone modify all those news reports as part of the conspiracy?
Originally posted by twhitehead See, you are a denier.
[b]... then why was no one talking about it before environmentalists were able to make it into an issue? Scientists were. Where do you think the environmentalists learned about it from?
What is most interesting about this conversation however is your conspiracy theory mindset. You aren't arguing that global warming ...[text shortened]... u are arguing it based on your personal perception of news reports over the last 50 years or so.[/b]
Is it also your belief that the scandals preceding the name change is also a conspiracy theory? I'm curious to see just how much denial you're willing to indulge in before you're willing to admit to anything.
Originally posted by lemon lime Are you kidding me? Assuming you were alive at that time and keeping up with current events, do you recall hearing conflicting news stories or anything about global warming when global cooling was in the news? Maybe sonhouse remembers... he might be the only other one here with an interest in science who would be aware of what was actually being written and reported on back then.
I was not alive at the time, but fortunately that does not stop me from considering the peer reviewed scientific literature (rather than articles written by journalists) of the time, which shows that global cooling was never a more popular hypothesis than global warming in the 1970s. See the Wikipedia article.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I was not alive at the time, but fortunately that does not stop me from considering the peer reviewed scientific literature (rather than articles written by journalists) of the time, which shows that global cooling was never a more popular hypothesis than global warming in the 1970s. See the Wikipedia article.
I saw the Wikipedia article after you posted a link to it, but I didn't read much of it. It didn't take long before it became apparent what the bias of the contributor happens to be, so it was at that point I stopped reading the article. I have little patience (and zero interest) in being treated to propaganda in an article that should be (but obviously doesn't have to be) objective and free of personal bias.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I was not alive at the time, but fortunately that does not stop me from considering the peer reviewed scientific literature (rather than articles written by journalists) of the time, which shows that global cooling was never a more popular hypothesis than global warming in the 1970s. See the Wikipedia article.
It's obvious (although I'm not sure why) you intend to stay with this one issue and ignore everything else I've been saying. So if I concede this one point to you, does this mean you will stop avoiding all of my other points? Or will it simply mean you must find some other one point to focus on, so as to avoid everything else I've been talking about?
Originally posted by lemon lime Is it also your belief that the scandals preceding the name change is also a conspiracy theory? I'm curious to see just how much denial you're willing to indulge in before you're willing to admit to anything.
When did the name change supposedly take place? Which scandals are you referring to? I don't read your local paper if that is what you are asking. I am Zambian.
Originally posted by lemon lime It's obvious (although I'm not sure why) you intend to stay with this one issue and ignore everything else I've been saying. So if I concede this one point to you, does this mean you will stop avoiding all of my other points? Or will it simply mean you must find some other one point to focus on, so as to avoid everything else I've been talking about?
I saw the Wikipedia article after you posted a link to it, but I didn't read much of it. It didn't take long before it became apparent what the bias of the contributor happens to be, so it was at that point I stopped reading the article. I have little patience (and zero interest) in being treated to propaganda in an article that should be (but obviously doesn't have to be) objective and free of personal bias.
Clearly, you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Anyway, there is a graph on that page which should be of interest to you.
It's obvious (although I'm not sure why) you intend to stay with this one issue and ignore everything else I've been saying. So if I concede this one point to you, does this mean you will stop avoiding all of my other points? Or will it simply mean you must find some other one point to focus on, so as to avoid everything else I've been talking about?
I merely wanted to point out that you were making a factually incorrect statement. It's good to see that you concede that you were wrong. What other points did you want to discuss?
Originally posted by twhitehead See, you are a denier.
[b]... then why was no one talking about it before environmentalists were able to make it into an issue? Scientists were. Where do you think the environmentalists learned about it from?
What is most interesting about this conversation however is your conspiracy theory mindset. You aren't arguing that global warming ...[text shortened]... u are arguing it based on your personal perception of news reports over the last 50 years or so.[/b]
So how about you? Are you a global warming scandal denier?
Originally posted by twhitehead When did the name change supposedly take place? Which scandals are you referring to? I don't read your local paper if that is what you are asking. I am Zambian.
It's a matter of public record, and certainly not a secret kept hidden from the rest of the world. Why anyone in Zambia would not be aware of this is something I can't answer, because I am not Zambian.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra [b]I saw the Wikipedia article after you posted a link to it, but I didn't read much of it. It didn't take long before it became apparent what the bias of the contributor happens to be, so it was at that point I stopped reading the article. I have little patience (and zero interest) in being treated to propaganda in an article that should be (but obviou ...[text shortened]... t's good to see that you concede that you were wrong. What other points did you want to discuss?
What if anything does Wikipedia have to say regarding the scandal I mentioned? I suspect if there is any mention of it at all it would probably be soft peddled in some way.
I know that whatever information I get from Wikipedia is from contributors who don't necessarily know (or will report) all of the relevant facts. You once referred me to a page about a particular person, but whoever contributed to that page got a few things backwards as far as timeline events are concerned.
How (in your opinion) is Wikipedia not susceptible to personal bias and opinion? Is information fact-checked with other sources, is there a peer review process before anything is submitted as being factual? What safeguards are used by Wikipedia to insure personal biases and fudged facts are kept to a bare minimum?
As far as other points that can be discussed... are you a global warming scandal denier? Or do you also live in Zambia?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I was not alive at the time, but fortunately that does not stop me from considering the peer reviewed scientific literature (rather than articles written by journalists) of the time, which shows that global cooling was never a more popular hypothesis than global warming in the 1970s. See the Wikipedia article.
I've noticed how you seem to put a lot of stock in the peer review process. It's a good enough process but it's not a perfect process... it can be just as susceptible to personal bias and faulty reasoning (or even fudged facts) as any other process that depends on the approval of a small group of people.
The peer review process is (supposedly) only concerned with a potential publication meeting the standards of science. But in the case of peer reviewing this actually involves a narrower interpretation of what we might normally call "standards of science", because the standards in question are determined by previously approved of publications. This means any kind of mistake or intentional fudging can be passed along and continually meet with approval by virtue of it already having been approved of.
"Peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science."
Global Warming in July!
21 Jul '14 08:46
Back to Top