Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I'd pay money to see Obama consume Paul Ryan so he can assimilate his DNA. Then he could grow a pair, because that's the one useful attribute of the Tea Party Republicans: giant, hairy, swinging cajones. Even the women.

[jester]

Some info on who is funding the vid/organization:http://mediamatters.org/research/201204270002

The short of its a guy named Howard Rich who has a history of funding political stuff, he is a real estate developer and 'political money man'
  Apparently not tied to oil companies, but apparently tied to some shady political stunts.

[Sheb]

Laglsayer, we're talking about published data here. It's not something that only them canv erify, it's something that is out there, available online.

[mainiac]

This video is the exact opposite of someone trying to create real discussion.  When you are trying to engage in scientific debate you don't start by accusing your opponents of fear mongering.  For christsakes, you aren't supposed to have opponents in scientific debate.  Kind of shows how far we've fallen.

[Lagslayer]

We have indeed fallen far, but this debate has been ongoing for many decades. If this were an issue completely contained within recent history, I could be more trusting because it could be more easily verified, and experienced personally. But instead, it concerns trends over millions of years, data which our species was not around to witness firsthand.

The debate I was trying to establish is that they control the data collection and how it's presented. Most people think along similar lines, especially under peer pressure. This makes it easy to get the masses to think a certain way, even if it's false. I mean, just look at religion...

[Leafsnail]

We have indeed fallen far, but this debate has been ongoing for many decades. If this were an issue completely contained within recent history, I could be more trusting because it could be more easily verified, and experienced personally. But instead, it concerns trends over millions of years, data which our species was not around to witness firsthand.

But there's plenty of second hand data around.  Different groups of scientists using different methods have come to broadly similar conclusions about climate over millions of years.  You seem to want to cry conspiracy for no real reason.

The debate I was trying to establish is that they control the data collection and how it's presented. Most people think along similar lines, especially under peer pressure. This makes it easy to get the masses to think a certain way, even if it's false.

Who is "They"?  Lots of different groups of scientists, many of whom will be rivals to each other?  I don't get how you can present SCIENCE as some kind of monolithic entity.  Sure, you could make money by reinforcing the status quo, but if the status quo were false couldn't you make a whole lot more and become famous by shattering the status quo with your new evidence?  I don't see any evidence for this massive data fabrication conspiracy you are proposing.

I think your post should end there.  The sentence that is added to the end is not even relevant to your point and strikes me as possible trolling.  I think it would be better if you got rid of it (otherwise the rest of the forum should try and ignore it).

[Flying Dice]

We have indeed fallen far, but this debate has been ongoing for many decades. If this were an issue completely contained within recent history, I could be more trusting because it could be more easily verified, and experienced personally. But instead, it concerns trends over millions of years, data which our species was not around to witness firsthand.

Firsthand observation isn't necessary; as Leafsnail pointed out, we can observe things indirectly.

The debate I was trying to establish is that they control the data collection and how it's presented. Most people think along similar lines, especially under peer pressure. This makes it easy to get the masses to think a certain way, even if it's false.

Apply Occam's Razor. Which makes more sense: that the vast majority of reputable scientists (often with competing interests) have reached the same conclusion (which is in no way beneficial to them personally beyond the joy of discovery, as it directly challenges aspects of our societal structure) based on the available data; or that the scientific community is somehow managing to cooperate to fabricate a massive consipiracy for... what, exactly?

[Mr. Palau]

The debate I was trying to establish is that they control the data collection and how it's presented. Most people think along similar lines, especially under peer pressure. This makes it easy to get the masses to think a certain way, even if it's false.

Apply Occam's Razor. Which makes more sense: that the vast majority of reputable scientists (often with competing interests) have reached the same conclusion (which is in no way beneficial to them personally beyond the joy of discovery, as it directly challenges aspects of our societal structure) based on the available data; or that the scientific community is somehow managing to cooperate to fabricate a massive consipiracy for... what, exactly?

Yeah, before creating a conspiracy theory you must have a reason for your conspirators to be actively engaged in the conspiracy. If they have no reason to conspire, why would they? Every good conspiracy has a reason behind it. For example, the jews are clearly trying to take over the world through the world wide financial sector.
 They obviously have  a clear reason to do so. Who wouldn't want to rule zee world?

(in case you didn't get it that was sarcasm)

[mainiac]

This is why most conspiracy theories postulate that the suspected group is trying to take over the world.  Because clearly once you make people insulate their homes for energy efficiency you are on the cusp of world domination.

[Flying Dice]

And therein lies the flaw: no person or group of people with the capability to take over the world would possibly be stupid enough to want to. Because taking over the world means you spend the rest of your life either managing the damn thing while desperately clinging to power as everything falls apart, or building a bureaucracy to do it for you, thus removing the larger portion of your control. Hence why all the real fake villains just want to destroy the world.

[FuzzyZergling]

Don't be ridiculous! Everyone with half a brain knows Obama was born on Kashyyyk and is half Zergling!

Lies!
<-<
>->

[Cthulhu]

What does running the world even mean?  This isn't Civilization, I'm not sure you even can take over the world to any meaningful degree.

[Neonivek]

Ask them what's on the "other side" of a black hole

Well what you are thinking of is a Wormhole. There is no "Other side" of a blackhole.

[Flying Dice]

What does running the world even mean?  This isn't Civilization, I'm not sure you even can take over the world to any meaningful degree.

That's exactly the point; no individual or small group can physically perform the number of functions necessary to run a world government, but if a hypothetical group or individual were to somehow take over the world (which in and of itself is virtually impossible), they would quickly lose power, either through massive amounts of delegation of responsibility or by being overthrown. I suspect that a portion of the whole 'take over the world' strain of conspiracy theories is perhaps due to an unconscious translation from 'my country/region of residence' to 'world'. After all, if you've never seen it, it can't exist, right? 

Unless it's aliens. Or Bigfoot. Or explosives in the WTC.

[Il Palazzo]

The debate I was trying to establish is that they control the data collection and how it's presented. Most people think along similar lines, especially under peer pressure. This makes it easy to get the masses to think a certain way, even if it's false.

Apply Occam's Razor. Which makes more sense: that the vast majority of reputable scientists (often with competing interests) have reached the same conclusion (which is in no way beneficial to them personally beyond the joy of discovery, as it directly challenges aspects of our societal structure) based on the available data; or that the scientific community is somehow managing to cooperate to fabricate a massive consipiracy for... what, exactly?

Note that the idea that scientists do resarch purely out of their need to satisfy "joy of discovery" is extremaly naive. A scientist who wants to do some research, applies for a funding grant to the organisation responsiple for the distribution of research funds, and hopes that some anonymous commitee(at least it's anonymous around here) decides to accept the application. Else no money for you. It is in each applicant's interest to put forward a proposition that is likely to be accepted, since the funds are limited and the competition is strong.
The people opposing the man-made global warming "craze"(well, some of them at least), argue that the scientific hypothesis in question, despite being, like many other scientific hypotheses, a work in progress, has gained a political and/or cultural acceptance to a degree that direct opposition to it is automatically discarded in the same way that a direct opposition to Newton's Laws of Motion would. They argue that the acceptance is undeserved, and serves only to cloud and polarise the proper scientific discussion, creating the situation that we're in now, where you can either "know" that the man-made global warming is real or you're a nutjob, basically.

I'm a layman, with only cursory knowledge of the matter, and as such am only entitled to having opinions on the subject that are closer to educated guesses than facts. On the sliding scale of probability, personally I find MMGW quite convincing, yet I do think that had the discussion remained less tainted by social pressures and concerns, it'd have been closer to proper science than it is now.

edit: fixed tags