H
HarryStotle
Guest
Oh, I don’t mind. I expected it.
- Status
S
StudentMI
Guest
I just realized I don’t think I ever posted my thoughts besides that article I linked to. My views on climate change are as follows: I think it’s real, I think it’s in part caused by humanity, and I don’t think it will be the catastrophe many are saying it will be.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The deletion of the Wikipedia article was not a question of scientific errors. It was a question of publicity stunt pretending to be a legitimate petition.LeafByNiggle:
I suppose if your mind is made up about what constitutes “misleading” a priori, then all information contrary to what you have predetermined is, therefore, “misleading.”
Fortunately, science isn’t supposed to be done that way. There was a “scientific revolution” a few centuries back that determined science to be an inductive – and open to new information and critique – and not a deductive or dialectic , method.
In other words, we don’t start with the assumption (opinion, really) that the climate is catastrophically warming and then ONLY accept evidence that supports that foredrawn conclusion, while writing-off all contrary evidence as “misleading.”
As I said, it is not a question of science. Snopes says it the implication of the petition was mostly false. They presented their reasons, which no one here has dared to try to refute - except with Ad Hominems.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually, no, they didn’t. They might have implied this but they didn’t actually claim it.
Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?
This heading is deliberately misleading given that the petition never raised the question of whether global warming was a hoax, as their own statement makes clear:
30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
The reference to a “hoax” was their own invention.
In it’s “What’s false” section Snopes wrote:
The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations…
This is not an argument, it is an ad hominem attack.
“…was distributed using misleading tactics…”
This is another ad hominem.
“…is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures…”
This is an opinion which assumes facts not in evidence.
“…and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.”
Finally, a statement of fact
In sum, the Snopes article misstates the question, and then purports to disprove that (non)question with only the aid of ad hominems and opinion. The low opinion of Snopes others have expressed, based on this response, seems justified.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Exactly… Some use Jesus and/or Catholic Teachings and/or the Bible - as their Source of Truth
Others? Use Snopes - which on controversial issues - invariably has a lean to the Left
Of Course… Whenever Snopes gets bebunked with Facts - those who support Snopes don’t like it.
It’s said that Snopes.com is owned by two people, not one.
They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson.
[Oh, well, that makes a world of difference.
Two people in a team could not possibly be leftists, now could they?]
AGW Alarmism - oft-claimed to have as it source - Leftists.
Any who solely rely on Snopes should never engage in discussions of Science, Eh?
Follow the Moolah Trail
_
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Nothing in their fact check disproves the claim of the petition. At best they point out not all the signatures validly represent experts in their fields because they were not cross-referenced, a fair point to make.
We may not all agree on the definition of ‘scientist’ but the petition is very explicit in their disclosure and definition. It should have been a ‘mostly true’, if they weren’t checking a strawman
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Which is why it’s always very important to check self-appointed Fact-Checkers
If one has even a fair modicum of generalized science ED under their belt
It’s quite Easy to get a decent level of understanding re: Climate…
Not So… If all one has does is C&P SNOPES
and/or parrot royally failed Climate prognostications by Al Gore
of resorts to simply saying “science” and ‘scientists’ - whilst ignoring 10’s of 1000’s of Scientists…
_
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, that is incorrect.
The Wikipedia page that was deleted was Wikipedia’s own listing of scientists who have dissented from the supposed “consensus.” There was nothing of propaganda there and it wasn’t related to any petition. It was merely a list of reputable scientists who don’t agree that human caused warming is the problem it is being made out to be, compiled by Wikipedia itself.
I cited the page above in Post #764 in August 2019, and now it has been removed by some editorial “decision” by Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
This wasn’t even related to the petition at all.
You may want to look into things a little more carefully before making comments that are irrelevant and misleading. Otherwise your qualifications for determining what is and is not “misleading” will suffer.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, since you didn’t specify which Wikipedia article you meant, I assumed it has something to do with what were were talking about, which was that petition. Now that I see that it was a deflection, I will ignore it like I should have in the first place.
They are not self-appointed. They attain their level of public trust by being right. And if anyone is going to fact-check the fact checkers, I hope they put the same amount of effort into careful research that the fact checker do, and don’t just offer armchair opinions.
I said the implication of the petition. The implication is that this petition represents a significant group of scientists who disagree with the main stream narrative of global warming. The fact that no vetting was done on any of the signatories disqualifies it from proving any such thing. As I said, it was a publicity stunt and nothing more, and Snopes showed exactly how.
That is a silly comparison. The subject matter is scientific and technical. Jesus and Catholic Teaching have nothing to say about the accuracy of on-line petitions.
I don’t know. I would have to see Snopes debunked with facts before could tell who would be upset by it.
More Ad Hominems. As I pointed out, Snopes always references their sources which anyone is free to verify on their own. You never have to simply take their word for anything when you have all their sources laid out for you to examine yourself.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
While acknowledging the “other considerations” you did what you could to minimize them by emphasizing your one point, when if fact those other considerations upend the whole point of CO2 being beneficial in a discussion about climate change. Now if we were in a different discussion, one about commercial greenhouse operations, the observation about CO2 being beneficial as an isolated fact would have been entirely appropriate.LeafByNiggle:
You need to be a bit more careful with your charges. I was addressing one specific point, and I cited that scientist addressing that one point. I even mentioned that there were other considerations, so the fact that you brought up other considerations (a) does not refute that one specific point, nor (b) in any way means that I ignored his conclusions.
I sounded like that to me when you said
If you are not accepting the processing that NOAA does to raw temperature readings, you are rejecting them. That is you are rejecting their analysis.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
True. But the objections apply to the non-misleading understanding of the petition just as well. It was an over-simplified title because a more accurate title would have been overly long.
I’ll grant you that one.
The tactics with which a petitions is circulated can be objectively evaluated, and its effect on the outcome can be fairly well predicted. For example, if the petition were offered only to people known to reject global warming, one could expect a very favorable response.
The facts to support this claim are right there in the presentation of the petition itself. The fact that no vetting was done is not really contested.
They should have verified, not just asked. And they should have been more exclusive of who could sign.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Errmmmmmmm Whom Appointed them? The Vatican? God?
They’ve been debunked…
Question… Do you know anything science-connected with Climate - off the top of your head?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
They were not appointed. They attained a reputation. They became respected by being right.LeafByNiggle:
Errmmmmmmm Whom Appointed them? The Vatican? God?
Easy to say, hard to prove.
Yes.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well now you are either clutching at straws or being dishonest.HarryStotle:
Well, since you didn’t specify which Wikipedia article you meant, I assumed it has something to do with what were were talking about, which was that petition. Now that I see that it was a deflection, I will ignore it like I should have in the first place.
I specified…
And linked to the article that specified the page…
Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
In reading the archived debate on this deletion, the editor gave his reason as
Cross categorization means correlating two categories that have a very poor justification for being correlated. For instance, a list of concert musicians in the US might be a justified encyclopedic article, and a list published romance authors might be a justified encyclopedic article. But a list of concert musicians who are also published romance authors has no encyclopedic value. It just a curiosity. The editor went on to say:
The justification of deleting the list was for the same reason that Snopes found the “petition signed by 30,000” to be misleading. The qualifications were not tight enough on both the signatories to the petition and the scientists in the list.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Oh… They attained a reputation, hah! … From whom? … Leftists? -
You know enough science - connected w/science to speak off the top of your head…
Fine… No more need to rely on Snopes or “genuine scientists”, eh?
_
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Wrong. I know some climate science. But I am not an expert. I defer to them.LeafByNiggle:
Oh… They attained a reputation, hah! … From whom? … Leftists? -
You know enough science - connected w/science to speak off the top of your head…
Fine… No more need to rely on Snopes or “genuine scientists”, eh?
_
E
Ender
Guest
Since I was discussing only that one point it seemed a reasonable thing to do.
I wasn’t discussing climate change. “The point” at issue was the effect of higher CO2 in the atmosphere on plants, and whether or not it was beneficial. About that, there is no real debate. As for the “other considerations” that suggest it might overall be harmful, that is entirely speculation based on the assumption that everything about global warming is true so the obvious benefit to plants is outweighed. None of which suggests for a moment that plant growth is not enhanced, a claim you asserted had been debunked.
If a detective investigates someone suspected of a crime are the only two positions he can hold “He did it” and “He didn’t do it”? Is “We don’t know” not an option? Right now NOAA’s alibi is looking shaky and I see no reason to take their word that their adjustments are valid simply because they say they are.
E
Ender
Guest
It was an invented title because the truth is harder to debunk.
Perhaps, but they merely asserted it without anything to substantiate it. Why should their
unsupported claims be accepted on faith?
You assume this without knowing whether it is true. It doesn’t say whether there was any follow up for those who signed. It the claim is true then names like Daffy Duck should be on the list. Were any such obviously bogus names found? If you don’t know then you can’t know if Snopes’ claim is true.
Again with the assumption. You don’t know what was done, you only know what was asserted. And why should they be more selective? Anyone with a bachelor of science in science is quite capable of following the arguments being made.
In any event, Snopes “debunking” here is in line with those who rejected them in the first place.
Last edited:
- Status