Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 2 Post By John Galt

Thread: Political discussion from "drop in sea level"

  1. #1 Political discussion from "drop in sea level" 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    NASA revealed satellite data to show how world sea levels actually dropped in 2011. I cannot stop laughing.

    Remember, it is a good thing to laugh when positive news is a surprise. The good news here is that the need for whiteknuckled panic so loved by Al Gore and Michael Moore et. al. is just a ruse. The global warming scientists and proponents really do not know what they are talking about. They can only speculate.



    97% of the worlds climate scientists say, "global warming is happening."



    Fox news and Rush radio, that you (or your friends) listen to, lied to you about global warming. They lied because corporations like Exxon mobile, do not want any laws passed that will decrease greenhouse gases. So when Exxon says "global warming is a hoax", they are just saying that so they can make more money.

    Fox news and Rush radio are also lying to you, (or your friends), about tax cuts increasing government revenues, and the democrats being the big spenders.

    But since these republican news sources, are also telling you (or your friends) things like "science can no longer be trusted", you most likely will not believe anything I say, unless Fox or Rush says its true.


    Your hooked into a cult and propaganda group, that is telling you lies, so Americas rich and large corporations can get tax cuts.

    And your such a fool, if Al Gore would have won the white house, our national debt would be around 50% of our GDP. But now because of G W Bush our national debt is around 100% of our GDP.


    Last edited by chad; June 26th, 2012 at 09:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The question remains: why on Earth would someone be concerned only about sea levels? Your explanation is not a good one for that, unless their concern is superficial and unthinking.


    These kinds of statements are put out by think tanks, from corporations like Exxon Mobile.

    When the think tank workers come across data, that seems to state global warming is not happening (like the data from sea levels going down). These think tanks then send emails to Fox news and Rush radio, that instruct them to tell the public, this misleading data. Think tank workers also appear of these phony news outlets as guests, and repeat the misleading data.




    Then the Fox news and Rush radio teams start saying "global warming is a hoax". And then they say "science can no longer be trusted." And then they say things like "the worlds college professors are involved in a communist plot, and they are working with the scientists, that lie about global warming."

    And once your average idiot gets hooked on Fox news and Rush radio, they are gone. They no longer believe science, or college professors, they only trust Fox news and Rush radio. And you cant get these people out of this Fox news/ Rush radio believers group.

    You can tell these Fox/Rush cult idiots 10,000x, that Fox News and Rush radio are lying to them. But you can (not) change their minds.

    It does not matter if 97% of climate scientists, say global warming is happening, because Fox news news and Rush radio, have already made them believe that "these 97% of climate scientists are lying for the communists."


    And this cult is spreading, and it is dangerous.

    And only a very small % of people can understand this, and (most) people do not even care.


    Last edited by chad; June 26th, 2012 at 09:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    And only a very small % of people can understand this, and (most) people do not even care.
    People do care. The problem is that people care about lots and lots of things.

    And we know even in the specific area of employment, the urgent consistently trumps the important. Not just for individual workers, but also for whole organisations.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    These kinds of statements are put out by think tanks, from corporations like Exxon Mobile.

    When the think tank workers come across data, that seems to state global warming is not happening (like the data from sea levels going down). These think tanks then send emails to Fox news and Rush radio, that instruct them to tell the public, this misleading data. Think tank workers also appear of these phony news outlets as guests, and repeat the misleading data.
    do you have evidence to back this assertion up ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    These kinds of statements are put out by think tanks, from corporations like Exxon Mobile.

    When the think tank workers come across data, that seems to state global warming is not happening (like the data from sea levels going down). These think tanks then send emails to Fox news and Rush radio, that instruct them to tell the public, this misleading data. Think tank workers also appear of these phony news outlets as guests, and repeat the misleading data.
    do you have evidence to back this assertion up ?





    The following link, is to a (free) to watch documentary titled "The Billionaires Tea Party", it shows/explains everything I said above.



    (EDIT: MY NEWEST POST BELLOW THIS ONE, HAS A LINK TO "THE BILLIONAIRES TEA PARTY", THAT IS PRESENTLY WORKING.)

    THE FOLLOWING LINK APPEARS TO WORK, UNTIL YOU HIT PLAY.



    Watch The Billionaires’ Tea Party Documentary Online Free


    This link goes to documentaryheaven.com





    Also in the "politics" section of this forum, (presently) on the second page. There is a thread titled,





    (edited) : (6) free to watch online, political documentaries, of aproximately (15-25) political documentaries, that a certain group of Americans, really should see. (edited)

    Started by chad‎, March 19th, 2012 02:36 AM





    This thread also has links, to several (other) documentaries like "The Billionaires Tea Party."

    Documentaries like these, are actually (not) allowed to be played, on regular American TV. "Fear and favor in the news room" is the source, for my last statement.

    I hope that you will check them out, they are highly informative.


    Have a good one,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; June 27th, 2012 at 02:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    These kinds of statements are put out by think tanks, from corporations like Exxon Mobile.

    When the think tank workers come across data, that seems to state global warming is not happening (like the data from sea levels going down). These think tanks then send emails to Fox news and Rush radio, that instruct them to tell the public, this misleading data. Think tank workers also appear of these phony news outlets as guests, and repeat the misleading data.
    do you have evidence to back this assertion up ?



    Sorry, the first link I provided seemed to work, until you press play.

    The following link for "The Billionaires Tea Party" is presently working.




    The Billionaires’ Tea Party | Watch Free Documentary Online




    This link goes to the website, truththeory.org. (This documentary was made by European's.)



    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; June 27th, 2012 at 02:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    These kinds of statements are put out by think tanks, from corporations like Exxon Mobile.

    When the think tank workers come across data, that seems to state global warming is not happening (like the data from sea levels going down). These think tanks then send emails to Fox news and Rush radio, that instruct them to tell the public, this misleading data. Think tank workers also appear of these phony news outlets as guests, and repeat the misleading data.
    do you have evidence to back this assertion up ?


    (Sorry for hounding you.) Since the link is so long, and I already saw the documentary, I pulled out a few parts for you, to show my point.

    In the "Billionaires Tea party",


    15:00-17:50 shows Fox/ Rush followers in public holding up signs, about a communist take over.

    30:00-34:45 shows experts like college professors and Green peaces director ex. ex. they explain how these think tanks manipulate the public. It also shows Fox/Rush followers speaking of the "global warming hoax." It also explains how Fox news gets emails from think tanks, instructing them to say think tank phrases.


    Other parts of the documentary explain everything else I said. And also explain a huge corporate propaganda machine, of lies and manipulation.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    15:00-17:50 shows Fox/ Rush followers in public holding up signs, about a communist take over.
    Your attempt to stretch this into your particular brand of general condemnation of all things conservative are unwelcome.
    You were asked a very specific question about evidence showing Exxon Mobile's disinformation campaign by feeding talk shows and Fox News--given the context it would be even better if you showed something about sea level. Furthermore given this discussion is in the hard science part of the forum--the question and answer should be not much more than a minor sidebar, not a rant opportunity.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    15:00-17:50 shows Fox/ Rush followers in public holding up signs, about a communist take over.
    Your attempt to stretch this into your particular brand of general condemnation of all things conservative are unwelcome.
    You were asked a very specific question about evidence showing Exxon Mobile's disinformation campaign by feeding talk shows and Fox News--given the context it would be even better if you showed something about sea level. Furthermore given this discussion is in the hard science part of the forum--the question and answer should be not much more than a minor sidebar, not a rant opportunity.


    I deleted this post, b/c of it being rude and/or ranting.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 12:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?


    Watch the documentary.

    And then think about, what you have seen in the world around you, with your own eyes.


    And then think for yourself, what is true and not true.


    Watch the full documentary, and then come talk to me, if you wish.


    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; June 27th, 2012 at 07:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    15:00-17:50 shows Fox/ Rush followers in public holding up signs, about a communist take over.
    Your attempt to stretch this into your particular brand of general condemnation of all things conservative are unwelcome.
    You were asked a very specific question about evidence showing Exxon Mobile's disinformation campaign by feeding talk shows and Fox News--given the context it would be even better if you showed something about sea level. Furthermore given this discussion is in the hard science part of the forum--the question and answer should be not much more than a minor sidebar, not a rant opportunity.



    Sorry,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 2nd, 2012 at 02:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Jeez Chad, we get it. Ain't no reasonably sane person would think you a G.W.Bush fan.
    Not my favorite neither. Can we move on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Jeez Chad, we get it. Ain't no reasonably sane person would think you a G.W.Bush fan.
    Not my favorite neither. Can we move on?

    I deleted this post, b/c of it being rude and/or ranting.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 12:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?
    Watch the documentary.

    And then think about, what you have seen in the world around you, with your own eyes.
    And then think for yourself, what is true and not true.
    Watch the full documentary, and then come talk to me, if you wish.
    Chad.
    So, you don't have any evidence. You just have opinions, prejudices and stereotypes. Can you explain to me why I should listen to someone with opinions, prejudices and stereotypes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?
    Watch the documentary.

    And then think about, what you have seen in the world around you, with your own eyes.
    And then think for yourself, what is true and not true.
    Watch the full documentary, and then come talk to me, if you wish.
    Chad.
    So, you don't have any evidence. You just have opinions, prejudices and stereotypes. Can you explain to me why I should listen to someone with opinions, prejudices and stereotypes?



    This is a forum of science, not mind reading.

    Try to discredit my source.


    Have you even watched my source?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Chad, you have to remember. A lot of people here are not American.

    We might have even more scathing opinions of American history/ politics / culture / leaders than you have. I certainly have a few that would be completely unacceptable to many posters here. But that's because I'm from a different background and I don't share a lot of your cultural baggage - my own is quite enough to bear. And even you might find some opinions of UK or Oz residents a bit hard to take - because you're American.

    You're also overlooking one of the prime political objectives. When you inform people about things you think they should take action on or think about, you shouldn't get their backs up before you even start. Feed the information bit by bit, see what responses and questions you get, answer, develop the dialogue ...... feed in a bit more. Rinse and repeat.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Chad, you have to remember. A lot of people here are not American.

    And even you might find some opinions of UK or Oz residents a bit hard to take - because you're American.

    When you inform people about things you think they should take action on or think about, you shouldn't get their backs up before you even start. Feed the information bit by bit, see what responses and questions you get, answer, develop the dialogue ...... feed in a bit more. Rinse and repeat.



    Lots of people in Europe, think that "Americas republican party is a cult."
    And lots of people in Europe, are literally (scared) of Americas republican party.

    We are human beings, and we have to protect ourselves, from things like huge (worship the rich, and to hell with everyone else) cults. Many Europeans feel just as I do.



    And thank you (very much) for your advise, I hope to someday read it again.

    Have a great day/night,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    This is a forum of science, not mind reading.
    Exactly. And science is based upon quality, validated observations. That is what I am asking for. That is what you are refusing to provide.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Try to discredit my source.
    Have you even watched my source?
    Your source is a documentary - perhaps you are unaware that even the best documentaries are forms of entertainment, not science. And there are many very bad documentaries. A documentary does not constitute validation for your claim. So, I ask again, do you have any evidence to support your contention? Or, is it just more of your emotional bluster against Republicans.

    I believe I have said it to you before, but you clearly do not believe me: your emotional rants are doing damage to those who consider the current direction of Repulican and conservative thinking in the US to be dangerous to US and global interests. The lack of balance, perception and viable analysis in your views devalues those who have serious objections to conservative views. Indeed, I am half convinced that you are an agent provocateur whose goal is to make Democrats and left wing thinking look illogical and wrong. You are certainly doing a much better job of that than you are of attacking conservative values.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    This is a forum of science, not mind reading.
    Exactly. And science is based upon quality, validated observations. That is what I am asking for. That is what you are refusing to provide.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Try to discredit my source.
    Have you even watched my source?
    Your source is a documentary - perhaps you are unaware that even the best documentaries are forms of entertainment, not science. And there are many very bad documentaries. A documentary does not constitute validation for your claim. So, I ask again, do you have any evidence to support your contention? Or, is it just more of your emotional bluster against Republicans.

    I believe I have said it to you before, but you clearly do not believe me: your emotional rants are doing damage to those who consider the current direction of Repulican and conservative thinking in the US to be dangerous to US and global interests. The lack of balance, perception and viable analysis in your views devalues those who have serious objections to conservative views. Indeed, I am half convinced that you are an agent provocateur whose goal is to make Democrats and left wing thinking look illogical and wrong. You are certainly doing a much better job of that than you are of attacking conservative values.

    Who are the people that speak in this documentary?
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?

    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?




    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?

    PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

    Thank you,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    [QUOTE=chad;333840]

    Who are the people that speak in this documentary?
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?
    [QUOTE]Do you understand how documentaries are made? Do you realise that the few minutes, at most, of speech from an individual is extracted from possibly hours of taping. The documentary director takes the material that supports the theme of the documentary and in many cases such a theme is more of an agenda, i.e. a political agenda. Moreover these scientists are making statements that are not subject to peer review and that may simply be opinions. These do not constitute valid evidence. Do you understand this?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?
    I can find it unreliable for the reasons noted in this and my preceding post. You claim to value science Chad, yet you choose to ignore one of its basic principles. Why is that?

    Will you also address my point about the negative impact on your argument of your aggressive, emotional rants?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    You said,

    "I am half convinced that you are an agent provocateur whose goal is to make Democrats and left wing thinking look illogical and wrong."



    (Please) do not fully believe your above statement. If you fully believed it, you would be suffering from a mental delusion.




    I am going to take a break from this forum. I have been letting out my (personal) anger, on other forum members.
    I don't really feel bad about what I said to Kojax, because he seemed to accept my apology. And I don't really feel bad, about what I said to you Mr. Galt.


    But I have said things to Sculptor and Lynx_Fox, that perhaps one, can not even apologize for.
    I am sorry. And I hope they (both) will someday forgive me.


    Have a nice day/night Mr. Galt.
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=John Galt;333844][QUOTE=chad;333840]

    Who are the people that speak in this documentary?
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?
    Do you understand how documentaries are made? Do you realise that the few minutes, at most, of speech from an individual is extracted from possibly hours of taping. The documentary director takes the material that supports the theme of the documentary and in many cases such a theme is more of an agenda, i.e. a political agenda. Moreover these scientists are making statements that are not subject to peer review and that may simply be opinions. These do not constitute valid evidence. Do you understand this?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?
    I can find it unreliable for the reasons noted in this and my preceding post. You claim to value science Chad, yet you choose to ignore one of its basic principles. Why is that?

    Will you also address my point about the negative impact on your argument of your aggressive, emotional rants?

    Will you (PLEASE) discredit my source, with something other than non-science?

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    [QUOTE=chad;333848][QUOTE=John Galt;333844]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Who are the people that speak in this documentary?
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?
    Do you understand how documentaries are made? Do you realise that the few minutes, at most, of speech from an individual is extracted from possibly hours of taping. The documentary director takes the material that supports the theme of the documentary and in many cases such a theme is more of an agenda, i.e. a political agenda. Moreover these scientists are making statements that are not subject to peer review and that may simply be opinions. These do not constitute valid evidence. Do you understand this?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?
    I can find it unreliable for the reasons noted in this and my preceding post. You claim to value science Chad, yet you choose to ignore one of its basic principles. Why is that?

    Will you also address my point about the negative impact on your argument of your aggressive, emotional rants?

    Will you (PLEASE) discredit my source, with something other than non-science?

    Chad.
    Chad, pay attention.
    1. Science requires evidence.
    2. Evidence must be properly collected, assessed, validated and reported.
    3. Today this reporting takes place in scientific journals.
    4. These are subject to peer review.
    5. Evidence from other sources may be interesting but it does not constitute scientific evidence.
    6. Your documentary falls into the category of anecdote and is not valid scientific evidence.

    Which part of this sequence of points does your present education prevent you from understanding?

    I have now answered your question at least three times. Will you please have the courtesy to answer mine?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?
    Don't know. (Can't watch videos at the moment anyway - sound system on some kind of intermittent strike action.)

    If it's Trenberth or Santer or Jerry Meehl or Katharine Hayhoe or any one of a couple of dozen top notch scientists who are seriously good at public presentations, it's really easy to find other public comments from them as well as their publications. You could use those.

    If you want to persuade, use one proposition or one person at a time. And go from there. Climate science is not a single, simple package. You want to show that a politician or a political group is wrong-headed? Use just one example at a time. Let's face it, the way things are you'll not run out of material for quite a while. You can just as easily write a couple of dozen posts of 10 to 20 lines to develop your point effectively. Writing half as many but as verbose, scattershot essays means you lose focus on your dialogue before it even gets going. And if people do read it, you'll have too many responses and questions to deal with to keep your argument on track.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=John Galt;333849][QUOTE=chad;333848]
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Who are the people that speak in this documentary?
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?
    Do you understand how documentaries are made? Do you realise that the few minutes, at most, of speech from an individual is extracted from possibly hours of taping. The documentary director takes the material that supports the theme of the documentary and in many cases such a theme is more of an agenda, i.e. a political agenda. Moreover these scientists are making statements that are not subject to peer review and that may simply be opinions. These do not constitute valid evidence. Do you understand this?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?
    I can find it unreliable for the reasons noted in this and my preceding post. You claim to value science Chad, yet you choose to ignore one of its basic principles. Why is that?

    Will you also address my point about the negative impact on your argument of your aggressive, emotional rants?

    Will you (PLEASE) discredit my source, with something other than non-science?

    Chad.
    Chad, pay attention.
    1. Science requires evidence.
    2. Evidence must be properly collected, assessed, validated and reported.
    3. Today this reporting takes place in scientific journals.
    4. These are subject to peer review.
    5. Evidence from other sources may be interesting but it does not constitute scientific evidence.
    6. Your documentary falls into the category of anecdote and is not valid scientific evidence.


    I deleted this post, for it being rude and/or ranting.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 12:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    That does not mean, forum members can not take part, in this thing called science here. We can all be scientists for a moment in this forum
    That's putting it just a bit too strongly. We can be observers and commenters on science done by others. As for participants, not so much. I suppose we could just about take on a role similar to a coach or official supporter for a sports team. But when it comes to the players - what we do is really Monday morning quarter-backing.

    Unless you're a professional statistician or actively involved in collecting, examining and analysing data, you're not really doing science. You're talking about science. There is a difference.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Please answer these questions. (But I do not think you will.)
    Do you set out to be offensive, or is it just pure bad luck?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Could a PBS "Nova" program be used as a source?
    This would be perfectly satisfactory as a source of a discussion point. However, if the point raised in the program was not part of accepted science, but was a controversial theory, or - as in this case - a viewpoint with political overtones, then it would proper to ask for further evidence to support this viewpoint. In most instances peer reviewed papers would constitute the best such evidence. I would certainly be prepared to consider op-ed pieces from quality newspapers, because their we would be able to read the thoughts of the author in full, not edited by a documentary director. These could serve to demonstrate that there might be a case to answer, but would be unlikley to constitute good quality evidence. It occurs to me that in a case like this, with political overtones, that transcripts from court hearings could well be relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But by your own statements, you are saying documentaries, can (not) be used as sources.

    Whats next, people cant use websites as sources, unless they are pier reviewed?
    Or people in this forum, can not say anything, unless it is pier reviewed?
    Anyone can post any nonsense they wish on a website. I asked you for evidence that the claims you were making were true. One of the sources for those claims appears to have been a documentary. I want something a little more solid than these for a controversial topic.

    And, of course, you can say anything you want on here - subject to forum rules - but if you wish to convince something of your case on a controversial issue you need to provide good quality evidence, not anecdotal material from edited documentaries. If you don't want to convince people, but just want to rant then I can rent you a street corner at a reasonable price.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Most forum members will never have pier reviewed papers, because they do not have the means.
    Rubbish. I have hundreds, probably over a thousand, peer reviewed papers on my hard drive, all legally obtained and costing me exactly nothing, other than time and electricity. While many journal articles have to be paid for the abstract is nearly always available at no charge, thereby offering you a wider choice of sources and potential evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But forum members can still speak about science. We can still make observations, and speak of them (without it being pier reviewed.) This forum is a place, were we can all be scientists for a moment. We can all take part in that thing called science ourselves. And (we) can all follow the format, traditions and the rules of science.
    .
    Search my posts on this forum. Find a single instance where I have failed to provide appropriate citations for a controversial point when asked to do so. I asked you for evidence. You launch in to a big song and dance routine. Be honest enough to say you are stating an opinion, for which you have only anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But when we all get together here, and do this thing called science.
    You aren't doing science Chad, you are preaching. (And some of the time, frankly, you are screeching.)

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    At least I would hope.
    I have answered every one of your questions in a succession of posts. I have taken time to explain in detail why you are mistaken. You have rudely ignored every question I have asked of you. Do you intend to continue being a Phillistine and ignore those questions yet again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We can be observers and commenters on science done by others. As for participants, not so much. I suppose we could just about take on a role similar to a coach or official supporter for a sports team. But when it comes to the players - what we do is really Monday morning quarter-backing.
    Unless you're a professional statistician or actively involved in collecting, examining and analysing data, you're not really doing science. You're talking about science. There is a difference.
    Agreed. 13 years and 5 universities, and a lot of science courses, and I am not a scientist, though rather well trained in the methodology, with a grasp of much of the lexicons, but. I was a student, not a scientist. God bless them all, especially the ones who understood well enough to explain what they knew succinctly.
    So in places like this, and the web, I can revisit some of that, and gain some of the understandings that have changed since i left the academy.(long ago-BW-before web---the new age of man?)
    ------
    anyone wanna discuss the oceans rise? rainfall zones and changes? glacial speeds? In Iowa we're still in drought, and now have 100degreeF temps. But, I got a hose, so my garden and wood are lush, and some of the transplanted mosses are spreading nicely.
    .......
    Oh, and Chad: will you be joining the anti-corporatocracy occupiers this season?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I was a student, not a scientist.
    Even if you are a scientist, that only gives you specific skills and competence in your own corner of your own field.

    Nobel Prize winners in biology or chemistry may have done something outstanding, but even they wouldn't be expert in cutting edge areas of the discipline they'd not studied since undergraduate years. And they're totally unqualified in areas totally outside their training and experience. They may have the intelligence and the ability - but they haven't done the work you need to put in to be on top of a particular sub-specialty.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    That does not mean, forum members can not take part, in this thing called science here. We can all be scientists for a moment in this forum
    That's putting it just a bit too strongly. We can be observers and commenters on science done by others. As for participants, not so much. I suppose we could just about take on a role similar to a coach or official supporter for a sports team. But when it comes to the players - what we do is really Monday morning quarter-backing.

    Unless you're a professional statistician or actively involved in collecting, examining and analysing data, you're not really doing science. You're talking about science. There is a difference.


    I deleted this post, for it being rude and/or ranting.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 12:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    From wiki,

    A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.



    There seems to be no age requirement, or education requirement to be a (scientist) by this definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    From wiki, ... A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. ....
    yippee
    i made it!
    as have we all
    thanx Chad
    Last edited by sculptor; June 28th, 2012 at 07:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Chad,
    I have taken consisderable time to answer every question you have asked me. You have resolutely refused to answer a single one of mine from my last several posts. Do you have any intention of responding to those requests?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?


    I deleted this post, for it being rude and/or ranting.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 12:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    They give me ((warnings)) to try to silence me.
    Chad,
    Most of the issues have centered on you ranting, taking topics WAY off target and supporting the pieces that actually have something to do with the topic. There's some give and take in the political sub-forum, there's must less tolerance for those types of shenanigans in the harder science sub-forums.

    I'm closing this supposed thread about sea-level and giving you 3 days off this time round for ignoring the earlier warning.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Chad, I happen to think politics around the globe is letting us down all down when it comes to the climate problem. The sight of a US Republican Party that cannot put forward and support a Presidential candidate that accepts the reality and seriousness of the climate problem is deeply dismaying. It's dismaying to see the conservative Right here in Australia as well as in the USA and elsewhere tolerating and even giving support and lending legitimacy to climate science denial. But I would hesitate to say that the main political alternatives looks any more effective on the issue. I am disappointed that Science - it's institutions, it's practitioners and the body of knowledge that has accumulated - can be the target of opinion shaping political campaigns to undermine credibility and reduce the trust and respect I think Science has both earned and deserves.

    I don't know that this thread is the place to discuss the political concerns in depth but I also think that discussion of environmental issues like climate change would be distorted and diminished by their exclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Unless you're a professional statistician or actively involved in collecting, examining and analysing data, you're not really doing science. You're talking about science. There is a difference.
    Here in America we have science fairs, where 12 year old children do their (own) experiments. These 12 year old kids, are (not) observers and commenters on science done by others, they do their own experiments.
    Amateur scientists are doing science. Not just kids at science fairs, but all those astronomers and other observers. I'd include all those people who contribute to animal, bird and insect censuses- they are collecting data for larger scale purposes and many of them do some real statistical work on their local phenomena. Same thing goes for some of the amateur meteorology around the place.

    I'd also include the marvellous work done by some people on websites. If you look at the Arctic Sea Ice blog, Arctic Sea Ice, you'll find a smallish group of dedicated people doing fantastic aggregations and comparisons of satellite images as well as elaborate analyses of various data collections, image sequences/animations and scientific papers. I always click on the links to those satellite views and I rarely, if ever, fully understand what I'm told I'm looking at unless it's truly spectacular like a huge chunk separating from a glacier or, currently, the Nares ice bridge collapsing. Go to the long term graphs page and you'll see quite a few analyses, presentations and organisations of data that have been done by interested amateurs - some of which are now being discussed and considered by the professionals in the field.

    What wouldn't I include?

    1) The work I and lord knows how many others do in transcribing old hand written meteorological data into digital form. (I stay away from the ships' logs and the radiosonde records because they're near unreadable. But the station data is a piece of cake.) It's valuable work, but it's librarian, office or archivist support staff work. Data preservation and maintenance is not science itself. I presume there may be similar projects in other scientific fields.

    2) Most discussions on most websites. Even those run by scientists or students themselves talking about their own work are not doing science, they're describing it, explaining it or teaching it. For contentious topics in medicine, biology/evolution, climate and the rest, they're often defending their own or others' scientific work - but they're actually being distracted from doing science in the process.

    And most of what happens here on this site is in the describe-explain-teach style or what-about-this-reference domain rather than the real hard work of science itself.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Split off political discussion from the thread in Environmental Issues, and unlocked thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    The only thing I gained from reading this thread is the knowledge that the moderators are kind..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I deleted this post b/c of it being rude, and ranting.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 12:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I would like to apologize, to all of the moderators in this forum. I should not even be speaking to you all, like I did above. I am very sorry for crossing those bounds.

    You all are very good, at being on the same level of regular members.


    During my suspension I joined other science forums. But I must say, that the moderators (here) are the best I have seen.

    Thank you for allowing me to express my views to you. And I am sorry for crossing the bounds that I did above.


    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The only thing I gained from reading this thread is the knowledge that the moderators are kind..


    They are also more tolerant, than I would have assumed.


    (Part) of me wishes, that some one was here, to punch me in the nose, for my above (edited out) behavior.

    I think I deserve it.

    I let my emotions and stress, get the better of me.


    I am sorry,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 2nd, 2012 at 10:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
    That being said(by a better man than i):
    Those who espouse extreem rhetoric are ofttimes viewed as mentally unstable:
    Personally, I'd like to see some semblance of justice from our supreme court, compassion from some republicans, and democrats acting like they had a pair of balls.

    Long ago, I was a student of Chinese history. Over the course of 3 millenia, roughly the same pattern was repeated again and again. It would start with a free peasantry. Then slowly the tax burden would shift more and more to the lower classes, as the wealthy and powerful and politically connected managed to avoid their fair share, or avoid paying taxes alltogether. The free peasantry, would end up deeding their land to a local lord, and working it as tenent farmers, then as serfs, then as serfs attached to the land, then as slaves. And, then, some disaster would happen; famine, an invading army, whatever, culminating in a free peasantry. Then the cycle would repeat itself again and again, on a roughly 2-3 century timeframe.
    I see my country moving into the latter stages of this cycle, with corporate ownership of most of our farmland, and their money and power corrupting our political system, and judiciary.
    Immages of guillotines flashing through my imagination. (sigh) oh well...................
    Last edited by sculptor; July 2nd, 2012 at 11:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (John Galt even changed the topic of this thread to "why on Earth would someone be concerned only about sea levels?"
    I did not change the topic of the thread. I cannot change the topic of the thread. I can go off topic. I leave it for others to judge whether my question took the original thread off topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Science is about finding the truth. And science does NOT omit data (because it says bad things, about your political party.)
    For the record Chad, in the UK I typically vote for the Liberal Democrats, a left of centre party. In US terms it is a far left party. I occasionally vote for the Scottish Nationalists, a socialist party. I have also voted for Labour, a left wing, socialist party and - as a protest vote - for the very far left Scottish Socialist Party. I have never voted for the right wing Conservative party and think it unlikely I shall do so unless adequately bribed.

    Do you see a pattern in my voting record? Do you think this might indicate where my political allegiances lie? Do you think my commitment to precise, scientific thinking will cause me to jump on a band wagon of knee jerk condemnation of right wing actions?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And then it (seems?) other moderators started attacking me, for political reasons?
    .
    No. Other moderators, acting as members, asked you to provide justification for your remarks and provide evidence for your assertions. In my case you appeared to leap to the conclusion that I was questioning you because of my politics, not because I wanted to pursue your claims from the perspective of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Why on Earth would a moderator, discredit my source, if they never even looked at it?
    How can a moderator make remarks about a source, if he does not even know what it is?
    .
    How many frigging times Chad do I have to explain why I question your source? Are you being dleiberately obtuse? You are certainly being deliberately rude, since despite answering every question you asked me you have blatantly refused to answer any of mine.

    A documentary is not an especially reliable piece of evidence. Do you understand why? Do I have to explain it again?

    Do you recall you claimed that you didn't have access to research papers? I pointed out that you were totally mistaken in that regard, since abstracts of nearly all research papers are available online and in many instances so are the full papers. You chose to quietly ignore that point. Will you continue to ignore it?

    Do you understand why it is important to provide the best possible evidence for any assertion? you appear not to. Why is that?



    In the post following the one I have quoted from you offer a series of apologies. I have ignored these since you appear to apologise as easily as you fart. Neither process now carries much attraction for me. If you wish to gain any credibility then, for me, you can start by answering some of my questions, or writing a paragraph that indicates you understand why I am asking for evidence for your assertions that carry a little more weight than a documentary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?

    Dear Mr. Galt,

    Since you are still posting here, and you also seemed to take offense by me not answering your questions. I will try to answer all your questions, in a non-rude and non-ranting way.


    You asked,
    Do you have any evidence to back up the assertions made in that documentary?


    The best evidence that I can currently think of is, (most to all) of the documentaries statements, can be quickly verified by Google searches.

    I also wanted to note that the host of the documentary, is also a European like yourself.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 03:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=John Galt;333844][QUOTE=chad;333840]

    Who are the people that speak in this documentary?
    Does a top (highly) respected scientist, in climate studies speak in this documentary?
    Do you understand how documentaries are made? Do you realise that the few minutes, at most, of speech from an individual is extracted from possibly hours of taping. The documentary director takes the material that supports the theme of the documentary and in many cases such a theme is more of an agenda, i.e. a political agenda. Moreover these scientists are making statements that are not subject to peer review and that may simply be opinions. These do not constitute valid evidence. Do you understand this?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    How can you discredit my source, if you have never seen it?
    I can find it unreliable for the reasons noted in this and my preceding post. You claim to value science Chad, yet you choose to ignore one of its basic principles. Why is that?

    Will you also address my point about the negative impact on your argument of your aggressive, emotional rants?

    I believe there is some truth, to what you are saying here. I actually went through this thread, and deleted many of my posts. After deleting the posts I posted this " I deleted this post b/c it was rude and/or ranting."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    You asked,
    Do you think my commitment to precise, scientific thinking will cause me to jump on a band wagon of knee jerk condemnation of right wing actions?




    I need to apologize, to all of your (conservative) fellow countrymen and woman. I can now see, how you would take great offense from my remarks.


    There is a huge difference between the governments of America, and most European countries.

    Americas government has been staffed, and taken over, by Americas corporations. Perhaps the biggest reason is, a US presidential candidate needs around $750 million dollars, to be able to run for president. And these US candidates get that money, from the corporations that have staffed, and taken over Americas government.


    Today in America, (lawyers) from large corporations, personally write most/all of Americas laws. For example, if a law is passed, in Americas federal government concerning "health insurance", that law will have been written by, attorneys from US health insurance companies. Or if a federal law is passed, about "oil field regulations", that law was written by Exxonmobil's private attorneys.

    Also, most of Americas (republican) appointed political positions, are filled by former CEO's, from the same corporations, their new job regulates. For example, if a US republican president, appoints someone to a government position that regulates oil production, the person that gets appointed to that job, will be a former Exxonmobil CEO. And these CEO's do huge favors for their former companies.

    For example, US republican presidents appoint, former CEO's (from corporations that are fined, by the US government for polluting). They are appointed to positions in Americas EPA. Once these former CEO's get the EPA position, they then cut the EPA's staff, so the EPA no longer has the man power, to investigate their former corporation.


    These same corporations also create phony (republican) news outlets, like Fox news and Rush radio. These corporate news outlets tell their US republican viewers 1000's of lies. And all of these lies help those same corporations make more money.

    The corporations that created/fund Fox news and Rush radio, they want (certain) things. They want low taxes for Americas large corporations, and low taxes for Americas rich. They also want to end business regulations. And their American republican listeners, fully share these corporations desires.

    But I am very happy, that your country, and other European countries, do (not) have these same problems. But I just cant help but fear, that one day your (conservative) fellow country people, will become connected to the American republican system.


    Americas democrats, are also (fully) involved in these above actions. But at this moment, Americas democrats only do about 1/7? of this corporate favor behavior.




    You asked,
    Do you understand why it is important to provide the best possible evidence for any assertion? you appear not to. Why is that?



    Yes, but there is not much talk, about these things. These things are not commonly spoken about, because of the fact, Americas TV, radio, and newspaper companies, are also owned by these same corporations. These US news outlets, do (not) allow information like this, in or on, their news outlets (source: Fear and favor in the newsroom.)



    But I take (great) comfort in the fact, that Europes governments are (not) like Americas.


    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 8th, 2012 at 03:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I will try to answer all your questions, in a non-rude and non-ranting way.
    That will make a pleasant change.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The best evidence that I can currently think of is, (most to all) of the documentaries statements, can be quickly verified by Google searches.
    Telling me that the evidence is 'out there somewehere, on the internet' is not providing evidence. You have made the claim; you are responsible for providig the evidence, retracting the claim, or admitting that it is only your opinion. Continuing these avoiding tactics is not acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I also wanted to note that the host of the documentary, is also a European like yourself.
    It doesn't matter if my frigging borther made the documentary, it is still a documentary and subject to all the limitations it possesses because it is a documentary. I repeat my question: do you not understand this very important point? Do you not understand why a documentary does not constitute good evidence?

    I believe there is some truth, to what you are saying here. I actually went through this thread, and deleted many of my posts. After deleting the posts I posted this " I deleted this post b/c it was rude and/or ranting."
    I accept that your deletions were well intentioned. To me they seem to be an act of cowardice.

    I need to apologize, to all of your (conservative) fellow countrymen and woman. I can now see, how you would take great offense from my remarks.
    Once again you appear to have completely missed the point. I shall try to explain it to you step by step. Please pay attention.

    1. You accused me of being hostile to your posts and unreasonably demandiong evidence.
    2. You asserted this was because I was a conservative and supporter of the Republicans.
    3. I explained to you that I am not a conservative.
    4. I explained to you that my hostility to your post was based on your repeated failure to provide good evidence for your assertions, or to recognise what constituted good and bad evidence.

    You then launch into a bunch of nonsense comparing the US and European political systems. I had nothing whatsoever to say about those. Why the heck did you bring them up?

    Yes, but there is not much talk, about these things. These things are not commonly spoken about, because of the fact, Americas TV, radio, and newspaper companies, are also owned by these same corporations. These US news outlets, do (not) allow information like this, in or on, their news outlets (source: Fear and favor in the newsroom.)
    So don't use frigging news channels as your frigging evidence! What do I have to say to get that single point across to you? Do you not realise that there are other forms of evidence? Don't you recall me giving you examples earlier in the thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I will try to answer all your questions, in a non-rude and non-ranting way.
    That will make a pleasant change.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    The best evidence that I can currently think of is, (most to all) of the documentaries statements, can be quickly verified by Google searches.
    Telling me that the evidence is 'out there somewehere, on the internet' is not providing evidence. You have made the claim; you are responsible for providig the evidence, retracting the claim, or admitting that it is only your opinion. Continuing these avoiding tactics is not acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I also wanted to note that the host of the documentary, is also a European like yourself.
    It doesn't matter if my frigging borther made the documentary, it is still a documentary and subject to all the limitations it possesses because it is a documentary. I repeat my question: do you not understand this very important point? Do you not understand why a documentary does not constitute good evidence?

    I believe there is some truth, to what you are saying here. I actually went through this thread, and deleted many of my posts. After deleting the posts I posted this " I deleted this post b/c it was rude and/or ranting."
    I accept that your deletions were well intentioned. To me they seem to be an act of cowardice.

    I need to apologize, to all of your (conservative) fellow countrymen and woman. I can now see, how you would take great offense from my remarks.
    Once again you appear to have completely missed the point. I shall try to explain it to you step by step. Please pay attention.

    1. You accused me of being hostile to your posts and unreasonably demandiong evidence.
    2. You asserted this was because I was a conservative and supporter of the Republicans.
    3. I explained to you that I am not a conservative.
    4. I explained to you that my hostility to your post was based on your repeated failure to provide good evidence for your assertions, or to recognise what constituted good and bad evidence.

    You then launch into a bunch of nonsense comparing the US and European political systems. I had nothing whatsoever to say about those. Why the heck did you bring them up?

    Yes, but there is not much talk, about these things. These things are not commonly spoken about, because of the fact, Americas TV, radio, and newspaper companies, are also owned by these same corporations. These US news outlets, do (not) allow information like this, in or on, their news outlets (source: Fear and favor in the newsroom.)
    So don't use frigging news channels as your frigging evidence! What do I have to say to get that single point across to you? Do you not realise that there are other forms of evidence? Don't you recall me giving you examples earlier in the thread?




    Earlier in this thread, you said the following thing to me,

    Chad, pay attention.

    2. Evidence must be properly collected, assessed, validated and reported.



    But (you) seem to be unable, to (assess) the evidence, that I have posted here.
    And you literally dis-credit evidence, that you have (not) even looked at. (This is not science, its closer to esp mind reading.)





    And you are still attacking me, about the sources that I list.
    But look around the forum John, lots of people list sources like mine.

    When other forum members, list sources at "Flickr" from yahoo.
    Why do you not attack their "Flickr" sources?

    But I personally have (no) problem with forum members, listing sources from places (like) "Flickr", "UFO conspiracy sites", "Big Foot sites", or "loch ness monster sites".

    I have no problem with this, because I can (assess) evidence.


    I actually looked at (your) posted threads in this forum. And to be honest, your threads seem (highly) impressive. But I guess when a person has your talents, they will be lacking in other areas, (after all no one is perfect.)

    Also I believe that it is (you), that starts the rude behavior in our posts to each other. I have tried several times to end our fights (MR.) Galt.
    But you always seem to come at me again. And I do like our fights John Galt, I just do not want to get suspended or banned from this forum.

    I do concede that many of the things, you have said here are correct. But I will stop talking here to be polite.


    Have a (great) day/night Mr. Galt,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Chad, you are driving me nuts with those parentheses, which you put in all the wrong places.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    YOU SEEM TO BE TAKING OFFENSE, FOR ME NOT DIRECTLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. I HAVE NOT DONE THIS ON PURPOSE.


    You said,
    Telling me that the evidence is 'out there somewehere, on the internet' is not providing evidence. You have made the claim; you are responsible for providig the evidence, retracting the claim, or admitting that it is only your opinion. Continuing these avoiding tactics is not acceptable.

    WHY DONT YOU ATTACK OTHER FORUM MEMBERS FOR LISTING SOURCES AT YAHOO "FLICKR"?



    You said,
    It doesn't matter if my frigging borther made the documentary,

    I SAID THIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT RELATE TO HIM, BECAUSE YOU ARE A EUROPEAN TOO.



    You said,
    [/QUOTE]Once again you appear to have completely missed the point. I shall try to explain it to you step by step. Please pay attention.

    JUST AS YOU MISS ALL OF MINE SIR.



    You said,
    1. You accused me of being hostile to your posts and unreasonably demandiong evidence.

    --I FEEL IT IS YOU THAT IS RUDE FIRST IN OUR POSTS

    2. You asserted this was because I was a conservative and supporter of the Republicans.

    --I NOW KNOW YOU ARE NOT, I WAS WRONG.


    AND MY HOSTILITY TO YOU, HAS BEEN FOR DISCREDITING INFORMATION, YOU HAVE NOT EVEN LOOKED AT,
    AND MY HOSTILITY IS ALSO, FOR YOU FULLY ALLOWING OTHER FORUM MEMBERS TO LIST 10,000 x WORSE SOURCES THAN MINE, AND YOU NOT TELLING THEM A WORD.



    You said,
    You then launch into a bunch of nonsense comparing the US and European political systems.[B] I had nothing whatsoever to say about those. Why the heck did you bring them up?

    BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE POLITICS SECTION John



    Have a nice day/night,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; July 10th, 2012 at 05:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Chad, you are driving me nuts with those parentheses, which you put in all the wrong places.

    I will stop using them.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    You said,
    So don't use frigging news channels as your frigging evidence! What do I have to say to get that single point across to you?

    WHY DONT YOU ATTACK OTHER FORUM MEMBERS WHO USE 10,000x WORSE EVIDENCE?
    WHY ARE YOU NOT ATTACKING THE "FLICKR" SOURCES IN THIS FORUM?
    I have never noted a member using FLICKR as a source. To be honest, I have no idea what FLICKR is. If you care to point me to some examples of FLICKR use on the forum I shall take a look at them.

    Certainly I have often demanded that members provide evidence to back up their claims. This is part of science and it is part of this forum. You appear not to understand this.

    Beyond that, it is irrelevant what I do or do not do in relation to other members. You have made an assertion. I have asked for evidence. You have offered only the content of a documentary. You still refuse to say whether or not you understand why a dcoumentary is not generally good evidence.

    Really, Chad, do you have reading comprehension difficulties. It is extremely frustrating when your repeatedly misread what I have written. (There are several possible explanations for this: you are trolling; your are rude; you are self centred to the point you only skim what others write; you have some form of learning difficulty.) I am not hostile to you - I am hostile to your posts. Do you understand the distinction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    You said,
    So don't use frigging news channels as your frigging evidence! What do I have to say to get that single point across to you?

    WHY DONT YOU ATTACK OTHER FORUM MEMBERS WHO USE 10,000x WORSE EVIDENCE?
    WHY ARE YOU NOT ATTACKING THE "FLICKR" SOURCES IN THIS FORUM?
    I have never noted a member using FLICKR as a source. To be honest, I have no idea what FLICKR is. If you care to point me to some examples of FLICKR use on the forum I shall take a look at them.

    Certainly I have often demanded that members provide evidence to back up their claims. This is part of science and it is part of this forum. You appear not to understand this.

    Beyond that, it is irrelevant what I do or do not do in relation to other members. You have made an assertion. I have asked for evidence. You have offered only the content of a documentary. You still refuse to say whether or not you understand why a dcoumentary is not generally good evidence.

    Really, Chad, do you have reading comprehension difficulties. It is extremely frustrating when your repeatedly misread what I have written. (There are several possible explanations for this: you are trolling; your are rude; you are self centred to the point you only skim what others write; you have some form of learning difficulty.) I am not hostile to you - I am hostile to your posts. Do you understand the distinction?

    Dear John Galt,

    Perhaps I have been sticking to my beliefs too strongly. After reading the threads, that you have started, I can kinda see the way you do things. But my brain does not work like yours, but I do the best I can.

    I am officially retreating from our present debate. And I concede, that you have won this debate.


    I still would like to respond to your above remarks. But since I feel, that I have already wasted your time here, I do not want to waste any more of your time.


    We do things differently Mr. Galt.

    And I can not, and I will not, change who I am, to conform to your beliefs, standards, or practices.

    But if you ever ask me a question again, I will read it more carefully, and do my best, to satisfy your scientific standards.


    But I get the feeling if we ever cross paths again, there will be similar results. Except for the fact, that I will study your questions harder before responding to them.

    As already stated, I declare you the winner in this threads debate. And I apologize for wasting your time.


    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I am officially retreating from our present debate. And I concede, that you have won this debate.
    There was never any debate, so there was nothing to win or lose, in that sense. You made an assertion; I asked for evidence; you offered inconsequential evidence; I pointed this out (persistently) and asked for proper evidence (persistently). You refused to provide any, or to declare that you could not provided any.

    That is not a debate. That is me explaining to you how things work. Not how my brain works versus your brain, but how science works and how this forum works.



    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    We do things differently Mr. Galt.
    And I can not, and I will not, change who I am, to conform to your beliefs, standards, or practices.
    The standards and practices are those of science and of this forum. If you wish to make a meaningful contribution to the forum and to the discussion of science you would be best to conform. Non-conformity is a right that is earned, not a lollipop to be handed out to anyone who asks.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But if you ever ask me a question again, I will read it more carefully, and do my best, to satisfy your scientific standards.
    Let me be repetitive. They are not my scientific standards. They are the standards of the scientific community. I am obliged to follow them just as much as you. The difference is that I don't kick up a massive stink about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    As already stated, I declare you the winner in this threads debate. And I apologize for wasting your time.
    And to repeat: this was not a debate. I did not win anything. You did not waste my time because I hope that my explanations and requests may have made sense to one or more lurkers. You may have wasted your time because it seems you learnt next to nothing,
    KALSTER and adelady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 50
    Last Post: October 9th, 2014, 05:50 AM
  2. Saucer shaped "object" found in Baltic sea
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 12:33 AM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: September 16th, 2011, 12:41 PM
  4. "Don't Become a Scientist" - article discussion
    By ScienceFictionNut in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: December 16th, 2009, 07:55 PM
  5. "Arctic sea ice melt even faster"
    By Cat1981(England) in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 7th, 2008, 06:03 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •