Green Propaganda?

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- The model may be found to be totally incorrect and is discarded - geosyncline theory is a prime example here, having been replaced by the theories underlying plate tectonics.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