Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on September 12, 2017, 11:14:43 AM
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/
Now the true believers want questioning global warming climate change to be made a criminal offense.
I would have said "Unbelievable!" -- except that I believe it. Criminalizing debate is much easier than coming up with hard science to prove your hypothesis.
-
I fear I will die in a different country I was born in. :'(
-
I fear I will die in a different country I was born in. :'(
I will die in MY country in a pool of my enemies blood.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I find it ironically funny (and not in the "ha ha" way) that one day the will cry out about the "deniers", comparing them to the church and Copernicus* and Galileo and Kepler, and the next day cry out for criminal charges for the heretic unbelievers, becoming "the church" themselves.
*Apparently the Catholic church didn't actually have a big problem with Copernicus, contrary to common myth. However the Protestants didn't like him much.
-
Criminalizing debate is much easier than coming up with hard science to prove your hypothesis.
But science is HARD and often BORING! Endless hours making & recording observations or experimental results, then actually ANALYZING all that data. And even with all that hard work, it might not confirm what your gut tells you is truth, meaning you have to make changes to your perceptions & conjectures and repeat all the hard & boring work.
Much easier and faster to just go with the feelings. More satisfaction as well, since gut feelings feed really well into other feelings like righteous indignation and the need to feel that you're doing something about the "problem". When "those deniers" don't come around to the proper way of thinking, we can just setup special groups to find them and correct their wrongness. Which makes us feel even more correct and righteous.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_FXmTwKZmSts%2FTPDrV7I901I%2FAAAAAAAAC9E%2FDchCVNNBlCE%2Fs1600%2Fmonty-python-spanish-inquisition.jpg&hash=fb9fdbaf8f4f5875823c3207b4225da3eab745c4)
/s
-
But science is HARD and often BORING! Endless hours making & recording observations or experimental results, then actually ANALYZING all that data. And even with all that hard work, it might not confirm what your gut tells you is truth, meaning you have to make changes to your perceptions & conjectures and repeat all the hard & boring work.
Why bother repeating all the work when you can simply "adjust" the data, and then cherry pick from that?
-
Where have we seen harebrained fascist ideas like this passed into unconstitutional laws? Oh, yeah, I remember. Hate crime laws.
-
I find it ironically funny (and not in the "ha ha" way) that one day the will cry out about the "deniers", comparing them to the church and Copernicus* and Galileo and Kepler, and the next day cry out for criminal charges for the heretic unbelievers, becoming "the church" themselves.
*Apparently the Catholic church didn't actually have a big problem with Copernicus, contrary to common myth. However the Protestants didn't like him much.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrNnBi.jpg&hash=e7cd73c5418024d50a1c9b6fb1ac8346279b1f38)
-
Why bother repeating all the work when you can simply "adjust" the data, and then cherry pick from that?
Just take one data point that you like and extrapolate from that. No need to adjust anything that way.
-
No, you need two data points. Just make sure the earlier one is cooler than the later one.
Then you can say that statistical analysis shows a definite warming trend. You may add an "alarming" in there if you're so inclined.
If you're feeling really ballsey, you can stick "rigorous" before "statistical," since the term "rigor" involves a value judgment anyhow.
Moreover, selection of the proper four data points will allow you to legitimately use the term "exponential" as well.
-
Moreover, selection of the proper four data points will allow you to legitimately use the term "exponential" as well.
Can't you do that with just three data points?
-
I find it ironically funny (and not in the "ha ha" way) that one day the will cry out about the "deniers", comparing them to the church and Copernicus* and Galileo and Kepler, and the next day cry out for criminal charges for the heretic unbelievers, becoming "the church" themselves.
*Apparently the Catholic church didn't actually have a big problem with Copernicus, contrary to common myth. However the Protestants didn't like him much.
I have heard the term "unbelievers" applied to the climate-change skeptical.
Climate change panic has sin, a means of atonement and an eschatology.
-
Where have we seen harebrained fascist ideas like this passed into unconstitutional laws? Oh, yeah, I remember. Hate crime laws.
At least with hate crimes, there is (usually) a crime that starts the ball rolling. Here, it's the mere discussion of an opinion that could get you cuffed and stuffed.
-
The amusing thing about the Human Caused Globular Worming/Climax Change thingy is that the most vociferous, screechy defenders of it are mostly people that don't have a clue about the science or lack of science with respect to it. Just about everyone I am acquainted with who are believers aren't qualified to comment about it. Blind faith...and they are generally of the neoliberal/leftist/progressive ilk and haven't done anything else except regurgitate sound bites.
Me, I'm equally stupid with respect to it, but at least I check out both sides of the story and go with seems to be the most plausible.