• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AWG conspiracy, why?

varwoche said:
The solution is pretty simple. Don't rely on newspapers. Go straight to the expert sources.
Click to expand...

Yes, newspapers are full of sensationalism and "Yellow Journalism". What expert sources would I turn to, though? I'm not sure where to look...
 
Bob from NJ said:
Yes, newspapers are full of sensationalism and "Yellow Journalism". What expert sources would I turn to, though? I'm not sure where to look...
Click to expand...

What about scientific magazines? Do you think that Scientific American is a bad source?
 
knife fight colobus said:
What about scientific magazines? Do you think that Scientific American is a bad source?
Click to expand...

Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon of trashing every science magazine, I think we should note that until recently, opposing points of view, dissenting papers, etc never saw the light of day. The reason is simple, why would these other publications run the risk of being discredited by those running the game and making the rules?
Editorial ideology was driven by money and fear. This is borne out when we look at climategate, wikiedia and Connolley, realclimate etc. And I can promise you there is more to come.

It will be interesting to see what transpires in the coming months and how these other science publications present themselves in the face of these (and coming) scandals.
 
The great global warming conspiracy, orchestrated by the mighty "wikiedia".
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon of trashing every science magazine, I think we should note that until recently, opposing points of view, dissenting papers, etc never saw the light of day. The reason is simple, why would these other publications run the risk of being discredited by those running the game and making the rules?
Editorial ideology was driven by money and fear. This is borne out when we look at climategate, wikiedia and Connolley, realclimate etc. And I can promise you there is more to come.
Click to expand...
I hope you someday have an opportunity to learn a little something about science and how it actually works. It isn't what you seem to think it is.
 
Upchurch said:
I hope you someday have an opportunity to learn a little something about science and how it actually works. It isn't what you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not.
But what I do understand is human beings, money and ideology.

I can recognise the exploitation of opportunity when I see it, and I can see that for what it is.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Perhaps not.
But what I do understand is human beings, money and ideology.

I can recognise the exploitation of opportunity when I see it, and I can see that for what it is.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly is a good thing this thread is already in the CT section.
 
Perhaps, but I am not and never have advocated a CT on AGW.

It is a lot simpler than that.

A few people chasing big money and using simple, tried and tested strategies to get it.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Perhaps, but I am not and never have advocated a CT on AGW.

It is a lot simpler than that.

A few people chasing big money and using simple, tried and tested strategies to get it.
Click to expand...

In your world everything is for sale? There's no such thing as integrity, honesty or self respect?
 
tsig said:
In your world everything is for sale? There's no such thing as integrity, honesty or self respect?
Click to expand...

Not quite.
Sure there is, in abundance.

But can you - hand on heart - tell me they are all without character flaws?
 
Alfie who do you think I should go to to find out about the legitimacy of AGW? Like what organization or expert(s) or scientific magazine(s)?

And do you think SciAm is a legit science magazine?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Perhaps, but I am not and never have advocated a CT on AGW.
Click to expand...

umm just a few posts back you claimed that the reason denier papers don't make it into the literature isn't because the papers are bad but because some unnamed cabal is conspiring to keep them out.
 
knife fight colobus said:
Alfie who do you think I should go to to find out about the legitimacy of AGW? Like what organization or expert(s) or scientific magazine(s)?

And do you think SciAm is a legit science magazine?
Click to expand...

In order: Don't know, don't know and don't know.

lomiller said:
umm just a few posts back you claimed that the reason denier papers don't make it into the literature isn't because the papers are bad but because some unnamed cabal is conspiring to keep them out.
Click to expand...

Which post, I don't recall saying any of that exactly.
Perhaps you misunderstood something.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
In order: Don't know, don't know and don't know.
Click to expand...

Before I continue asking further questions, are you stating that the scientific literature is filled with false information about AGW because of ideologies of the editors in the journals that make up the scientific literature?
 
knife fight colobus said:
Before I continue asking further questions, are you stating that the scientific literature is filled with false information about AGW because of ideologies of the editors in the journals that make up the scientific literature?
Click to expand...

There is a possibility of an element of that - however I would not use the word "false" either.
When coupled with other factors (money, ideology, fear etc) it is entirely possible that scientific journals and editorials are not completely balanced in perspective.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
There is a possibility of an element of that - however I would not use the word "false" either.
When coupled with other factors (money, ideology, fear etc) it is entirely possible that scientific journals and editorials are not completely balanced in perspective.
Click to expand...

OK, since you hold such beliefs towards scientific journals and such, why is it that you do not know any sources that you feel are legitimate?
 
knife fight colobus said:
OK, since you hold such beliefs towards scientific journals and such, why is it that you do not know any sources that you feel are legitimate?
Click to expand...

For the reasons stated time and again. In short:

There is too much debate between scientists, politicians and the wider population - us included.
Models miss, ongoing scandals (some justified, some not), liars on both sides, alternate or ulterior agenda's, human beings and their ego's are heavily involved, as is money and ideologies.

Like the science itself, there are so many variables within the field and its discussions as to negate the certainties that we are constantly given.

Moreover, the more vociferous and abusive the AGW proponents get, the more skeptical I (and others) become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom