Green Propaganda?

Aye Matey!

Hi All,

Long time no speak. I thought it might be time to start a general thread concerning the energy sector, legislation, all things green and their related conspiracy theories.

I submit to you but one catalyzing item for brain fodder :

February 10, 2009
The Green Party has called for a Northern Ireland minister to be sacked after he banned adverts warning of the dangers of climate change.
Members said environment minister Sammy Wilson’s decision to outlaw the Act On CO2 campaign - funded by the government - was ‘grossly irresponsible’. Mr Wilson, who denies man is to blame for global warming and has the power to override Westminster, claims the TV and radio adverts are ‘propaganda’.

Similar items are expected and welcomed from fellow CT members. The Emerald Isle is about to turn a shade greener with the requirement for domestic Building Energy Ratings and the foretold domestic carbon taxation of a not too distant future.

Diogenes

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Hi All,

Long time no speak. I thought it might be time to start a general thread concerning the energy sector, legislation, all things green and their related conspiracy theories.

I submit to you but one catalyzing item for brain fodder :



Similar items are expected and welcomed from fellow CT members. The Emerald Isle is about to turn a shade greener with the requirement for domestic Building Energy Ratings and the foretold domestic carbon taxation of a not too distant future.

The same section of the DUP also believe in creationism. Says it all.

Aye Matey!

Diogenes wrote: »

The same section of the DUP also believe in creationism. Says it all.

Pardon the political ignorance but what does the acronym stand for?

Sratch that: http://www.dup.org.uk/

Run_to_da_hills

Aye Matey! wrote: »

The Emerald Isle is about to turn a shade greener with the requirement for domestic Building Energy Ratings and the foretold domestic carbon taxation of a not too distant future.

Its called invoking "Eco fascism" fair play to Sammy Wilson the N I Environment Minister who banned the global warming propaganda .

Mahatma coat

The same section of the DUP also believe in creationism. Says it all.

Quick quick someone find out his stance on the holocaust, thats obviously more important than whatever he has to say about the issue being discussed:rolleyes:


and Sod you RTDH, Goodwin'n the thread before me

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Quick quick someone find out his stance on the holocaust, thats obviously more important than whatever he has to say about the issue being discussed:rolleyes:

What a fine bit of Modding.

Run_to_da_hills

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Quick quick someone find out his stance on the holocaust, thats obviously more important than whatever he has to say about the issue being discussed:rolleyes:


and Sod you RTDH, Goodwin'n the thread before me

:D:D

Mahatma coat

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

or can you PROVE something that the wider scientific community cant?

you seem to be so brilliant and absolutley right in your pronouncements that I sit here witrh bated breath in anticipation.


or are you just gonna Sh!te on about nothing loudly??

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

Indeed but it's theory with lots and lots of evidence which creationism doesn't have. I'm not a scientist so I can't say that global warming is real but I have no desire to discover that it is. No one can afford to take that chance. If the American government says it's happening when their normal inclination would be to say quite the opposite then you'd have to give it very serious consideration.

Mahatma coat

if the American Government said Red Was Green enough times would you change your mind about traffic lights???

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

or can you PROVE something that the wider scientific community cant?

you seem to be so brilliant and absolutley right in your pronouncements that I sit here witrh bated breath in anticipation.


or are you just gonna Sh!te on about nothing loudly??

Ahhh the old "it's only a theory" argument.
Possibly the most retarded of the creationist's arguments.

Funny thing is it's still the theory of Gravity and the theory of relativity even though both have been proven completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Someone needs to learn what the word means in a scientific context.

Aye Matey!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if the American Government said Red Was Green enough times would you change your mind about traffic lights???

Simple analogy but effective none the less.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Evolution is Just a Theory anyway, same as Climate Change.

or can you PROVE something that the wider scientific community cant?

Gravity is just a theory, why don't you jump out of a 5th floor window to prove it wrong.

Nick_oliveri

Mahatmas a creationist? Say it aint true buddeh!

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Mahatmas a creationist? Say it aint true buddeh!

I think it's more of a pedantic contrary attitude rather a coherent philosophy on MC's part.

But hey prove me wrong MC, outline your theory than like the planet is like 300,000 years max, based on your own personal incredibility, rather than a rational argument.

Mahatma coat

Nah not a creationist by a mile, however those people are entitled to believe in whatever crazy theories they like, if they want to postulate alternatives then they are free to do so, we dont have toisten to them, but we cant just wander over to them and punch em inthe face 'Cos They're wrong' its just opinion, yours is no more valid than theirs.


heres an interestin piece from the ABC website

abc.net.au wrote:

Charles Darwin's 200th birthday seems to be an appropriate occasion to celebrate the fact that evolution is not a scientific theory.

This introduction is of course an attention-grabber, intended to raise the hackles of respondents who must then read on a bit, in search of ammunition. I might have written, more temperately, that evolution is a philosophical theory. Essentially, it is a theory about an interesting group of non-particulars called 'kinds'. Scientists - notably biologists, for whom species are the only interesting kinds - do not have exclusive rights. When the philosopher Daniel Dennett remarked that evolution is the single best idea that anybody ever had he may have been expressing the second best idea that anybody ever had, because evolutionary theory explains the shaping of cultural kinds just as well as it explains the historical shaping of biological kinds.

Kinds of these two sorts are common (or sometimes garden). There are biological kinds such as the cane toad and the artichoke, and there are cultural kinds such as the electric toaster and the home mortgage. Kinds are unlike other non-particulars in that every item of a kind must owe its distinctive characteristics to previous items of the same kind. It must have parents (or precedents in the case of cultural kinds), with characteristics that are transmitted by active replication, copying, reproduction or imitation.

This generic consideration is irrelevant when we sort things in other ways: for example, when we sort them into classes or types. Member of the class of hundred kilogram vegetarians do not need hundred kilogram vegetarian parents, but a gorilla must have had parents who were gorillas (unless it is an item of cultural kind, such as a pretender in a hairy suit).

Kinds are interesting because they have a pair of intimately related features, both of which can be explained in a regular way. One is that each kind persists over a period of time that usually far exceeds the lives of its items, and the other is that it changes over time in a way in which its individual items do not change. This is just as true of cultural kinds like the home mortgage and the electric toaster as it is of biological kinds like the cane toad and the artichoke.

'Evolution' is the name we give to a comprehensive theory about the way in which the persistence of a kind and its shaping over time are both comprehensively explained. What makes evolutionary theory so powerful is the pattern of this explanation, which is the same in the cultural domain as it is in the biological domain. Biologists account for the persistence of a biological kind in terms of the splitting of DNA that underwrites the replication of the gene. They account for its historical shaping in terms of the imprecision of genetic replication, combined with the differential adaptation of slightly differing individuals to environmental hazards.

These accounts of the evolution of biological species are so persuasive that many people are ready to concede the entire theory of evolution to scientists as if it were wholly and solely theirs. But the fact is that the evolution of cultural kinds follows the same pattern, with differences in detail. Items of a cultural kind such as the electric toaster do not persist by autonomous self-replication but through the agency of purposeful imitation. The shaping of the kind over time is not attributable to contingencies of weather or to the abundance of predators or prey; it is attributable to the shifting social, political, economic and moral climates into which variant cultural items vie for the attention of imitators.

The classic quote about the persistence of a cultural kind such as the Wildeian witticism is 'I wish I had said that!' followed by the response: 'Don't worry Oscar, you will'. And the factors that determine the historical shaping of a cultural kind are frequently obvious. We stumble upon a new toaster with a pop-up mechanism and we spontaneously chorus 'Wow! Where d' you get it?'.

Obviously not all the inexactly imitated items of a cultural kind are equally adaptive. A statue of a crucified frog recently displayed in an Italian church has been condemned by the Vatican, and cultural historians will no doubt explain the success or failure this variant form of a familiar icon in terms of factors such as this Papal disparagement.

Despite the similarity of pattern some differences in the detail, as between biological and cultural evolution, differ in ways that may be significant. Self-replication is not purposefully aimed, like imitation. The onset of an ice age or of global warming is less arbitrary and more predictable than a shift in the moral, religious, economic or political climate. Because of this the two principal domains of application of evolutionary theory are not ultimately reducible one to the other. Cultural evolution is not a mere component or aspect of biological evolution; nor is biological evolution a triumph of the will.

The significance of this non-reducibility can't be overstated because there is a craven tendency among cultural theorists to sell out their position to the biologists. They are ready to argue, for example, that works of art (which are a mish-mash of cultural kinds) are 'really' all about beauty, and beauty is 'really' a subtle form of coercion exploited for its own ends by the majestically inscrutable force of biological evolution.

For all I know these theorists may be right about what beauty is, but they are certainly wrong about what works of art are. Works of art are objects offered up for our contemplation, as a more or less popular form of entertainment. At their best they enable us to recognize ways of saying or doing things that we had not previously known to be possible. They offer us greater or smaller epiphanies, both emotional and practical, and they force us to make up our minds whether to propagate a new way of thinking, feeling or acting by enthusiastic imitation, or to bury our discovery and walk away.

In either case the range of considerations that will affect the shaping of a cultural kind is as wide as the entire range of human interests. The crucified frog will certainly not succeed (nor will it fail) as a variant cultural kind merely because it is or it isn't beautiful. Moreover, whether it flourishes or disappears, the evolution of its kind will be of little interest to a biologist; unless perhaps on Sunday.

and Gravity, G or g ?

bonkey

Gents...this is not a creationism thread. Take it somewhere else.

Also...both Diogenes and Mahatma infracted for feeling the need to take digs at each other. Last warning, boys.

On a final note...where's the conspiracy? It strikes me here that Aye Matey! is starting from the position that there is one...without bothering to explain what it is, who's behind it, and so forth.

Mahatma coat

The Conspiracy Bonkey is the Greens using their power to silence anyone who questions 'Their Accepted Wisdom' on climate change or challenges their absolute moral authority on all things Environmentalist.

yer man was right its blatent propaganda designed to push an agenda, an agenda that a lot of us are wary of as it would seem to ultimatley lead to extremely punitive restrictions being placed on some aspects of life in the name of 'the Greater Good'

I notice that Gormleys Lightbulb ban has been repealed with much less fanfare than it was announced, typical Green Showboating nothing of any substance behind their policies just a lot of soundbytes cobbled together by angry hippies

Run_to_da_hills

I have already started a controversial thread on this subject in the Green Issues Forum.

And it is a conspiracy issue.

"When Green issues turn to impose fascism it's time for us to put the foot down "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055482519

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The Conspiracy Bonkey is the Greens using their power to silence anyone who questions 'Their Accepted Wisdom' on climate change or challenges their absolute moral authority on all things Environmentalist.

That's strange, because the article the OP links to was about the Greens taking action against someone else trying to ban sometyhing promoting climate change.

Put more simply, Sammy Wilson wanted to silence once side of the debate - the "pro" climate change side. The article is about opposition to that.

Seeing that as an attempt to silence the "anti" climate change side is, frankly, a bit of a stretch.

yer man was right its blatent propaganda designed to push an agenda,

Are you saying that its acceptable to silence a viewpoint, as long as it happens to be one you disagree with?

Make no mistake here...that's what Sammy Wilson tried to do. He tried to silence a viewpoint he disagreed with - and you appear to be saying that not only is it wrong that he be censured for it, but that he was right to do so.

If there's a conspiracy here, its one to silence so-called "Green" viewpoints. That's what Wilson tried to do, and now people here seem to be saying the Greens are wrong to object to that.

I believe both sides should be heard. What Wilson did by banning it was, therefore, unconscionable. It is right and proper that he be censured. If the material being promoted was inaccurate or incorrect, then why not expose it for the lie that it is, rather than trying to silence it?

So I ask again...where is the conspiracy here? Is something wrong with the Greens objecting to their voice being silenced by someone who disagrees with it? Is something wrong with trying to silence a voice in the first place, thus making the Greens correct in this case?

For me, its the latter, which is why I asked the question. I wanted to see if people see it as a conspiracy against the Greens, trying to silence them....or if they were objecting to the Greens complaints about being silenced. You apparently fall into the latter group.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Funny thing is it's still the theory of Gravity and the theory of relativity even though both have been proven completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Someone needs to learn what the word means in a scientific context.

Just a slight point here.

If you're going to suggest that people learn what the word means in a scientific context, then use it that way yourself.

Theories - in a scientific context - cannot be proven. It is inaccurate - or using an incorrect context - to suggest that the theory of gravity or relativity have been proven.

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

Just a slight point here.

If you're going to suggest that people learn what the word means in a scientific context, then use it that way yourself.

Theories - in a scientific context - cannot be proven. It is inaccurate - or using an incorrect context - to suggest that the theory of gravity or relativity have been proven.

Yea you're right, I should have clarified it.

Both the theories of gravitation and relativity have so much supporting evidence they are not quite 100% but in a practical sense proven.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Nah not a creationist by a mile, however those people are entitled to believe in whatever crazy theories they like, if they want to postulate alternatives then they are free to do so, we dont have toisten to them, but we cant just wander over to them and punch em inthe face 'Cos They're wrong' its just opinion, yours is no more valid than theirs.

They believe whatever stupid things they want. Doesn't mean their right. And certainly doesn't mean their opinion alone carries the same weight as the mountain of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

The opinion of a creationist and a person who understands evolution are not equally valid. the opinion of the evolutionists opinion is based on the understanding of the theory and of the evidence behind it. The creationist opinion is based on poor understand of the theory and science itself, complete misrepresenting, igorning or twisting the evidence and a healthy does of logical fallacies thrown in.

It's not "cos they wrong". It's because the evidence clearly shows them to be wrong.
But imagine someone believing something based on poor understanding and bad logic with absolutely no supporting evidence....


Edit: As if to answer my prayers the mighty Aron Ra puts out this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0

Mahatma coat

Bonkey, my objection is to the Greenies being given carte Blance to promote any fcukin crazy idea they like as the 'truth' yet when someone objects to it we find that we are not discussin the message but the censure, its a distraction, there is generally very little put forward in any of the green campaigns, some wishy washy slogans and a picture of a Polar bear or some other Bleedin Heart Liberal Sh!te, theyre deliberatley vague so as to be 'irefutable'.

Sammy Wilson appears to have objected to a series of these advertisements as there was no balance, no counter point and no notion of entertaining alternate theories. so yes if the Greenies want to fill the heads of the population with Blatent Propaganda either they keep it fair and balanced or they should be told, not good enough go back and do it again, this time try and include some balanced perspective.


course as we can see, its much easier for them to have a No confidence Vote in Mr Wilson and silence him
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/noconfidence-vote-puts-wilson-under-pressure-14184263.html

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Bonkey, my objection is to the Greenies being given carte Blance to promote any fcukin crazy idea they like as the 'truth' yet when someone objects to it we find that we are not discussin the message but the censure, its a distraction, there is generally very little put forward in any of the green campaigns, some wishy washy slogans and a picture of a Polar bear or some other Bleedin Heart Liberal Sh!te, theyre deliberatley vague so as to be 'irefutable'.

Sammy Wilson appears to have objected to a series of these advertisements as there was no balance, no counter point and no notion of entertaining alternate theories. so yes if the Greenies want to fill the heads of the population with Blatent Propaganda either they keep it fair and balanced or they should be told, not good enough go back and do it again, this time try and include some balanced perspective.


course as we can see, its much easier for them to have a No confidence Vote in Mr Wilson and silence him
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/noconfidence-vote-puts-wilson-under-pressure-14184263.html

You do realise that there is overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that global warming is real, and is happening.

You're basically saying that alternative viewpoints need equal air time. If someone says that Global warming is due to god focusing a giant magnifying glass at the poles, does this merit equal air time?

Mahatma coat

'Overwhelming Consensus' is not Proof or evidence tho is it.

There was Overwhelming consensus amongst the Inteligence communitite that Iraq had WMD's


so yeah, why should one side be given prority when no one really knows whats happenin anyway.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'Overwhelming Consensus' is not Proof or evidence tho is it.

There was Overwhelming consensus amongst the Inteligence communitite that Iraq had WMD's


so yeah, why should one side be given prority when no one really knows whats happenin anyway.

So what your saying is people should support their claims with good evidence then and not rely on fallacies like arguments for authority?

Funny that.....

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'Overwhelming Consensus' is not Proof or evidence tho is it.

No, but science can't prove things, and can only reach concesnsus about a theory based on evidencial testing of it.

There was Overwhelming consensus amongst the Inteligence communitite that Iraq had WMD's

No, there wasn't. In fact, its well established that the Bush Administration overstated that case.

Besides which, the Intelligence Communitee aren't scientists, so it doesn't matter.

There's overwhelming consensus amongst flat-earthers that the earth is flat, but they too aren't scientists, so its not a relevant comparison.

Mahatma coat

hang on a mo, come back here with them goalposts

I thought Science was all about Proof.
definitive answers, nonfalsafiable and all that Sh!te


It was WELL established AFTER the fact that the Bush administration Lied through its teeth, but a lot of vested interests went along for the ride when Colin Powell was givin his Anthrax Speech to the UN.

as for Flat Earthers, well this isnt a Creationist Thread

Mahatma coat

Bonkey wrote:

Besides which, the Intelligence Communitee aren't scientists, so it doesn't matter.

Please Clarify what you mean here, as I think I'm readin this wrong and gettin annoyed by your aloofness

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

hang on a mo, come back here with them goalposts

I thought Science was all about Proof.
definitive answers, nonfalsafiable and all that Sh!te

Perhaps you should look into what the scientific method is before you wax on about it, for example "nonfalsafiable" isn't a word, the closest word would be unfalsifiable. I'd suggest you'd start with some light reading starting here

It was WELL established AFTER the fact that the Bush administration Lied through its teeth, but a lot of vested interests went along for the ride when Colin Powell was givin his Anthrax Speech to the UN.

And yet, somehow I have the dim memory of being among the millions of people, who marched against the War, one of the many reasons people had for opposing the War, was the shoddy nature and dubious calibre of the intelligence presented to justify the war.

As to the "after the fact" The British Dossier, that Powell used as a part of his UN presentation, was given the nickname of the Dodgy Dossier originally on Sept 24th 2002, several months before the invasion. PalmeGate erupted in October 2002, also several months before the invasion.

as for Flat Earthers, well this isnt a Creationist Thread

Flat Earthers aren't necessarily creationists. Creationists aren't necessarily Flat Earthers.

So You don't understand what the scientific method is, you're making basic factual errors as to the pre Iraq war intelligence, and you don't understand the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

hang on a mo, come back here with them goalposts

Certainly

I thought Science was all about Proof.
definitive answers, nonfalsafiable and all that Sh!te

Nope. Never has been.

Mathematics is all about proof, but mathematics is not a science.

Science - in very broad terms - is about producing models which accurately reproduce existing observations and accurately predict future ones. You can't prove a model is correct. You can show that it has correctly modelled X number of occurrences, but you can never prove that the next occurrence won't break the model.

Take a "simple" example - gravity. We have a model of its effects which is (so far) petty good. We trust this model, quite literally, with our lives...countless times every day. We cannot prove, however, that it is correct. We can (and do) assume it to be correct with a very high degree of confidence, but we cannot prove it.

So science is neither about definitive answers, nor about proof.

There is a sort of "proof" that science does deal with: proving an assertion to be false. This happens when a model makes a prediction which is subsequently shown to be false. In this sense...science must be falsifiable. If its not falsifiable - if you cannot find it to be wrong - then its not science. When a model makes a prediction which is shown to be false, there are a number of things which can happen:

- The model may be refined. This is quite frequent and is a perfectly normal part of science. Some choose to see it as an admission that everything in science is wrong. Others see it as an admission that nothing in science is 100% completely correct.

- The model may be "bounded" - we accept that it predicts accurately within known bounds. A simple example of this is the reality that we can (and do) use Newtonian physics to build a skyscraper, but shouldn't (and generally don't) use them to send a probe to Mars.

- The model may be found to be totally incorrect and is discarded - geosyncline theory is a prime example here, having been replaced by the theories underlying plate tectonics.

So science is not about non-falsifiability...but rather the complete opposite. Science must be falsifiable.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Please Clarify what you mean here, as I think I'm readin this wrong and gettin annoyed by your aloofness

I mean that there is no connection between how the intelligence community form their opinions in their fields of interest and how the scientific community form theirs....or at least, there is none until you can establish one.

Thus, it doesn't matter what the intelligence community said when. It is not a comment on the validity or otherwise of any scientifically-backed position.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote: »

for example "nonfalsafiable" isn't a word,

This still isn't the Spell Czechs forum.

If you want to argue over spelling and grammar, you're in the wrong place.

Final warning - if you can't curb your penchant for taking digs at Mahatma in this forum, I will.

Diogenes

bonkey wrote: »

This still isn't the Spell Czechs forum.

If you want to argue over spelling and grammar, you're in the wrong place.

Final warning - if you can't curb your penchant for taking digs at Mahatma in this forum, I will.

This wasn't a dig at either spelling or grammar, it was more pointing out the general lack of awareness of the concepts and "facts" as described by Mahatma. But I understand your point, and will tone it down.


Going back to the difference between the scientific method and the intelligence community. Well the average scientist won't be working in the dark with information gleaned from a possibly biased alternative lab. For example, much of the pre Iraq intelligence, came from Iraqi opposition leaders, people with an active grudge against Saddam, and a definitive agenda fro regime change. Much of the intelligence came from sources that could not allow for independent verification.

Let me put it this way, if I was proposing a proof to a scientific conference and had to admit that one of the major sources of my data came from a lab that stood to gain substantial grants in the event of a positive result, while at the same time I was forced to admit I was working with sample data I could not independently verify and indeed I got from a guy, who knows a guy, about a guy, and then yes I had to admit I had a clear personal conflict of interest I would be drummed out of the community.

Comparing the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming to The Pre Iraq War Intelligence, is like comparing a flan to a ford mustang. Theres no criteria to compare them to each other.

bonkey

Bonkey, my objection is to the Greenies being given carte Blance to promote any fcukin crazy idea they like as the 'truth'

They have no such thing.

The government put out a series of ads, based on the government's position, which is backed by scientific consensus.

Let me put that in conext.

Imagine that the government put out a series of ads saying that smoking leads to lung cancer...and wanted them put on cigarette packets. Crazy idea, I know...but bear with me...

Its a position that has scientific consensus. It is a position in line with the chosen policy direction of the government. By your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable for a Minister to ban this ad campaign on the grounds that he believed the whole thing was based on a con.

No-one is denying the minister his right to hold a personal opinion. They are denying his right for him to attempt to unilaterally effect government policy based on his personal opinion. He is entitled to speak out and object. He is not entitled to single-handedly decide what the government's policy should be.

yet when someone objects to it we find that we are not discussin the message but the censure,

Wilson didn't object. He engaged in what was possibly an abuse of power to prevent policy that he disagreed with from taking effect. This led to people saying it was an abuse of power, which led to a democratic process to decide whether or not he overstepped his bounds. The pre-existing structures to monitor such things (in this case the Environmental Committee) were asked to consider the matter, and returned for the first time ever a vote of no confidence in the Minister...in effect saying that they did not believe he had acted in a manner befitting his position.

Again, let me stress. No-one has tried to silence Wilson. No-one has tried to argue that Wilson can not hold, nor voice, his opinion. What they have said is that Wilson cannot abuse his position as Minister to put his personal beliefs above chosen governmental policy.

Sammy Wilson appears to have objected to a series of these advertisements as there was no balance, no counter point and no notion of entertaining alternate theories.

Again...he didn't object. He used his position to block a governmental decision.

There is also no onus on the government to offer balance, counter-point or alternative theories. When is the last time you saw a government ad telling us that pollution isn't a problem, that cigarettes are harmless, or that eating nothing but processed food is perfectly fine? When is hte last time you complained about the lack of these ads? Do you think we should have them? If not, why not? The government should offer balance when it believes there is a decision to be made by the public....but when it comes to the policies that by definition the public have entrusted the government to make, its the government's job to make those decisions.

so yes if the Greenies want to fill the heads of the population with Blatent Propaganda either they keep it fair and balanced or they should be told, not good enough go back and do it again, this time try and include some balanced perspective.

So where are all the threads about smoking not causing cancer? Where is the balanced perspective there?
Where is government policy telling us that nutrition isn't really all that important?
Where is the outrage that we're not getting these views?

course as we can see, its much easier for them to have a No confidence Vote in Mr Wilson and silence him

I find it deeply ironic that you are defending someone for apparently abusing their position to push a personal belief, apparently for no other reason than because its a belief that you agree with.

You appear to be judging what happened, not in terms of whether or nor the person acted appropriately, but rather in terms of whether or not you agree with the beliefs underlying the person's actions.

I suspect that if the roles were reversed - that the government were deciding on an ad campaign showing this "balance" that you believe is necessary, and Mr. Wilson banned it because he believed that it was a one-sided issue - you'd be lined up with those calling for him to be removed for abusing his position in this way.

At the end of the day, you're supporting the notion that a single person can block any governmental policy they see fit to block...which would mean that buying off one single person is all you need to do to control policy.

Seperate the issue from the action. What Wilson did was wrong, regardless of why he may have done it.

Aye Matey!

I agree with MC. Any educated individual should realise the obvious dangers of a misplaced and unflinching belief in "scientific consensus". I'm very surprised at some of more the esteemed skeptical contributers of this forum (and Diogenes, that was a very unanticpated attack of grammatical/spelling discrepenices - your submissions are valid enough without having to resort to such tactics).

So often the CT'ers of this forum are dismissed with the usual adage: "prove it, or just shut up and/or go home'. Perhaps now more than ever its time to turn the tables. Skeptics, I beckon thee to coherently provide proof that supports a rebuttal of the following:

1. Global average temperatures might not increase by no more than a half a degree over the next hundred years as a result of greenhouse warming.
   
2. Despite numerous natural fluctuations in the climate record their is no substantiated evidence as of yet of any warming trend.
   
3. The atmosphere has actually cooled since 1979, according to accurate satellite- based measurements.
   
4. The less than one-half degree of temperature rise (all that global warming enthusiasts can find) is most likley derived from the slow recovery from the ‘Little Ice Age’ or serves as the most likely interpretation of why the temperature increased between 1900 and 1940, well before industrial activity and population grew.
   
5. Even if global warming does occur, any necessary adjustments would be small compared to the adjustments we make to temperature differences over the course of a year. Just compare a half-a-degree increase to a summer-winter difference of as much as fifty degrees Celsius (in Minnesota).
   
6. Just a few decades ago, climatologists were concerned about global cooling. Scientists are obviously confused about the issue.

And we're the ones who are supposed to be making irrational, baseless, speculative and unsubstantiated claims...

:rolleyes:

Sofa_King Good

This may go some way to explaining the prioritisation of climate change etc in our lives.

Scientist who question it have recieved death threats ( from which thought nazi's I wonder? ) shunned by their community and have had funding cut off.

Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide...

Here is the article
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=59026020

And for anyone is interested here the documentary mentioned

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22global+warming+swindle%22#

Mahatma coat

heres the Ad in question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9GYYKqiJZw

judge for yerself.

Also Sammy Wilson may be just one man but he is/(was, depending on when you are reading this) the Environment Minister, so the decision to allow or Ban this ad is in his Portfolio.

yeah I'm not a fan of just bannin stuff, but Hey I did it meself when I were a mod and there were perfectly good reasons for it.


OK To Goodwin the thread, certain Governments in the 20's and thirties had Scientific consensus on Eugenics and the inferiority of specific races, they had policies in line with this kind of thinking, not just the obvious ones, but how about the stolen generation, there was overwhelming consensus that it was the right thing to do. so if anyone felt agreaved about it they should have just shut up, the scientist had spoken the government had decided on its line End Of Story.

Oh yeah yesterday was the aniversary of the apology for that

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK To Goodwin the thread, certain Governments in the 20's and thirties had Scientific consensus on Eugenics and the inferiority of specific races,

Well pointed out. Governments had scientific consensus.

The scientific community, on the other hand, did not have consensus.

bonkey

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Skeptics, I beckon thee to coherently provide proof that supports a rebuttal of the following:

I first ask you to re-read the post I made regarding why science does not deal with proof.

Once you've read and understood that, you will see that this challenge is loaded.

If you'd then care to rephrase the question so that its not loaded, I'll happily deal with it.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Well pointed out. Governments had scientific consensus.

The scientific community, on the other hand, did not have consensus.

You don't believe that eugenics was scientifically accepted at that time? Come on Bonkey, you know that science is not always right; and that is a part of the scientific process. Theories are challenged, some are proved to be incorrect, others are not.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

You don't believe that eugenics was scientifically accepted at that time?

That depends on what you mean.

Did some scientists believe in it? Of course they did.

Did some nations have a policy which their scientists backed? Of course.

Did the scientific community, assessed independantly of nation, creed or colour, have a common consensus on the issue, as they do today with respect to theories of gravity, relativity, or the anthropogenic impact on the climate? No, they did not.

Come on Bonkey, you know that science is not always right; and that is a part of the scientific process. Theories are challenged, some are proved to be incorrect, others are not.

Just as you, Kernel, know that there is a distinction between what one scientist believes and what the scientific community have established as the leading theory, right?

Mahatma coat

Did the scientific community, assessed independantly of nation, creed or colour, have a common consensus on the issue, as they do today with respect to theories of gravity, relativity, or the anthropogenic impact on the climate? No, they did not.

and you can say this with absolute certainty?

Methinks you are viewing history through Rose tinted glasses. there is evidence of Widespread uptake and support for the policies o Eugenics across theworld, not only in what we would refer to as Western countries, granted tere may have been opponents of it, a vocal minority as you would and these are the ones now quoted in the history booksbut the Majority of the Scientific Community was in Consensus from what I have researched on the topic.

want to split this off into another thread?

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

That depends on what you mean.

Did some scientists believe in it? Of course they did.

Did some nations have a policy which their scientists backed? Of course.

Did the scientific community, assessed independantly of nation, creed or colour, have a common consensus on the issue, as they do today with respect to theories of gravity, relativity, or the anthropogenic impact on the climate? No, they did not.

I'd agree with what MC just said, and also I'd say that I'm speaking in general terms here. Generally accepted. If you look at things pedantically, there are always those exceptions who disagree, but is it fair that we use them to support our institutions? By the way, there are scientists who have differing views on the three theories you have mentioned also.

bonkey wrote: »

Just as you, Kernel, know that there is a distinction between what one scientist believes and what the scientific community have established as the leading theory, right?

So you're saying that the scientific community did not advocate eugenics then?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I'd agree with what MC just said, and also I'd say that I'm speaking in general terms here. Generally accepted.

Ok. Lets assume that it was. Lets leave aside the question of who constitutes "general" acceptance, and say that I was wrong and it was the prevailing scientific concept in its field at the time.

If you look at things pedantically, there are always those exceptions who disagree,

I'd never suggest that there was unanimity in any science field. Hell, I've read stuff from scientists who are pretty certain that the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity is just plain wrong....but I'd never suggest that there wasn't a consensus on those issues either.

I expect, therefore, that when we return to discussing the green agenda, you will not use the small number of exceptions who disagree as a basis to argue that there is not a consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.

So you're saying that the scientific community did not advocate eugenics then?

I believe that the political community certainly did.
I believe that the ideas of eugenics were derived - at least in part - from the science of genetics.
I'm not convinced that eugenics was ever a science (as opposed to a philosophy), and I would have serious reservations about saying that there was consensus amongst the (relevant) scientific community that it was correct.

Even if I'm wrong on that, I still don't see the problem with respect to the whole Green issue. It seems like you guys are going a horribly long way to not ask the simple question:

"bonkey, don't you think its possible that the scientific consensus is wrong"

Of course its possible that they're wrong....but that's a question for the green forum or the science forum.

The question for this forum should be:

"bonkey, don't you think its possible that the scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to mislead us"

My answer there is no, I don't believe thats possible.

Mahatma coat

Someone is engaged n a conspiracy to mislead us whether the scientific community are complicit or whether they are being duped just like the rest of the Sheeple ( scientists are people too;)) is another question, but have no doubt that behind this Green Propaganda is a sinsister plot to strip us of more rights and property.

Agnda 21 anyone?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Someone is engaged n a conspiracy to mislead us whether the scientific community are complicit or whether they are being duped just like the rest of the Sheeple ( scientists are people too;)) is another question,

I think its far more than "another question". If the scientists are in on it, then surely we need to be able to coherently explain how that could be. If htey're not in on it, and are being duped, then we equally need to explain how that could be.

How does one fool the global scientific community in one specific field into believing something? How does one fake source after source after source of data, so that it all produces the same data...even when one cannot know in advance what these guys are actually going to analyse?

It would seem that an answer to either of these questions is necessary in order to be able to rule out the other two possibilities - namely that the scientists are correct, or that the scientists believe they are correct but are, in fact, genuinely mistaken.

You've ruled out that the science can be correct. You've ruled out that the scientists can be unintentionally incorrect. How?

but have no doubt that behind this Green Propaganda is a sinsister plot to strip us of more rights and property.

I have doubt and plenty of it.

As I've pointed out above, there are two possibilities which you've apparently ruled out in terms of the scientists. Neither of these possibilities preclude the existence of a political conspiracy to leverage the scientific consensus, but they've been ruled out with the notion that its "another question".

Equally, there are possibilities to do with the political aspects which also don't require any form of conspiracy...but again, these seem to be just left by the wayside. No-one here can seriously suggest that people don't have differing opinions on issues...so why does it require a conspiracy for someone to decide that they believe the science and - based on that - to decide on a course of action that happens to be in disagreement with what you want? Why does it require a conspiracy for such an idea to be more popular than you'd like? It sounds more like "a political view that I disagree with" than "a conspiracy" to me...

In other words, it would seem that what you're really saying is that if there were a conspiracy here and if it involved the politicians, then what we're seeing would not be at odds with that. I'd agree with such a position, also pointing out that what we're seeing is not at odds with there not being a conspiracy, or with there being a conspiracy which doesn't involve the politicians.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Someone is engaged n a conspiracy to mislead us whether the scientific community are complicit or whether they are being duped just like the rest of the Sheeple ( scientists are people too;))

Theres an interesting book I just picked up on Climate Change Deniers

About 99% of the scientists involved in climate studies, paleontology, atmospheric chemistry, and planetary ecology agree on the presence of human-caused global warming. We call that a scientific consensus. But in every science there are a few heretics who don't agree on the consensus. That 1% dissent is what powers science forward. In fact, tolerating heretics is what makes science different from religion. The dissent is usually wrong, but every once in a while if you don't kill it off, it corrects the consensus.

What should we do with the 1% who dissent about global warming? By logic, we should embrace them, but currently "deniers" of global warming have become demonized, which is a sign that global warming has become slightly religious. Which is a shame because many global warming skeptics are not crackpots or paid shills, but first-class prestigious scientists with a minority view.

Throughout its history, science usually advances from the edges. Heretics should be cherished for forcing edges to the center. The most respected scientific global warming heretics have been rounded up in this very readable book, The Deniers. Significantly, many of the eminent scientists included here don't call themselves deniers at all. They say, "I believe global warming is evidenced in all these other fields; Except in the field that I am expert in, the evidence is totally bogus." One by one the field-specific heretics make their case. And a number of them are rather persuasive. But at the moment there is no unified alternative theory of climate change, so the critique of global warming amounts to exposing holes in the current science. Any good scientific theory will have holes.

Full review here

is another question, but have no doubt that behind this Green Propaganda is a sinsister plot to strip us of more rights and property.

Agnda 21 anyone?

Until the heretics can change the consensus, we should proceed with the remedies that make sense no matter how climate change rolls out: getting off oil and coal, upping conservation, drastically increasing efficiency, expanding solar, wind, nuclear, and embracing cities while protecting wildlife habitat.

See it's the inconsistency that boggles my mind, the same people who think the NWO are pushing a "green agenda" forcing us to embrace new technology away, become more sustainable, less dependent on foreign oil? Right? The same posters who are also claiming the NWO want to invade Iran to gain control over their oil reserves. Would a little consistency be too much to ask?