Help support TMP


"Uh-Oh Skippy" Topic


21 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't make fun of others' membernames.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Lemax Christmas Trees

It's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


557 hits since 18 Feb 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP18 Feb 2017 9:58 a.m. PST

Another nail in the coffin…….
link

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 Feb 2017 10:23 a.m. PST

Wow American thinker. Why not use stormfront as a source to show how nazism is great.

Cacique Caribe18 Feb 2017 11:30 a.m. PST

Gunfreak,

Yes, yes. I think we get it. Everyone who disagrees* is automatically a fascist, Nazi and white supremacist (regardless of our actual ethnicity and political views).

Dan
*Maybe that's why everyone (including organizations) feels everything has to be a package deal, either full buy-in or they'll be ostracized and labeled all the above:
link

skippy000118 Feb 2017 11:39 a.m. PST

I always figured it may be something other than the radical left was promoting.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 Feb 2017 11:55 a.m. PST

I didn't say anything about fascism. Only that using American thinker as an anti climate change source. Is a reliable as using stormfront as a source for nazism being nice.
Or using peta as a source for pigs being smarter than humans.
Or belona as a source for nuclear power being evil.

jdginaz18 Feb 2017 11:56 a.m. PST

Wow! Strait to attacking the source and totally ignoring the data. I guess that's all you can do when you can't refute the data which you probably didn't read anyway.

Cacique Caribe18 Feb 2017 12:03 p.m. PST

Lol.

They claim it's all about discussing the science, yet they quickly show how it's really all about something else.

Dan

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 Feb 2017 1:54 p.m. PST

When the source is as laughable as American thinker, yes there is no need to do other things then say the source is useless. Anything else only give those useless sources credibility.

jdginaz18 Feb 2017 4:08 p.m. PST

Just another weak excuse for ignoring the data.

JSchutt18 Feb 2017 5:06 p.m. PST

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-Albert Einstein-

I don't know….I tried it in high school…and it didn't work…

zoneofcontrol18 Feb 2017 6:08 p.m. PST

"When the source is as laughable as American thinker, yes there is no need to do other things then say the source is useless."

The "source" is a retired scientist from NOAA. Kinda blows NOAA out of the water if that logic were followed.

Cacique Caribe18 Feb 2017 7:18 p.m. PST

US mainstream media won't disseminate such a quote though, no matter the Science. Perhaps because the Science community will treat you like a heretic for even printing someone else's conflicting data.

Makes one wonder. Or should. :)

Dan

Bowman18 Feb 2017 9:47 p.m. PST

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-Albert Einstein-

Except that it has never been successfully attributed to him or found in any of his writings. It is considered of spurious origin.

Bowman18 Feb 2017 9:58 p.m. PST

No nail, no coffin.

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

Etc.

Bowman18 Feb 2017 10:11 p.m. PST

As for CERN

link

link

link

Bowman18 Feb 2017 10:56 p.m. PST

As for American Thinker, I'll leave it to Rational Wiki for this glowing endorsement:

"American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication ………

The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism."

As for the science, why not quote the Discovery Institute for the former and Climate Depot for the latter?

GarrisonMiniatures19 Feb 2017 2:53 a.m. PST

OK, I'm a Brit. US politics as in Democrats/Republicans is meaninless to me other than the final result – for example, is the present President a GOOD THING or a BAD THING. In this case, not relevant.

So.

As basically a neutral in political terms (is this a political thread so should be banned?) what do I think of the article?

Let's just say that it seems to give a political party credit for being far more powerful than seems likely…

Re data, data is looked at if it comes from a believeable source. If you don't trust the source, you don't look at the data. So you quickly scan the paper for things that jar – like 'London's new smog is created by burning wood pellets instead of natural gas,because gas prices have tripled to pay "renewable" subsidies.' No, London has a problem because we now know that diesel fuel is not the GOOD THING everyone thought it was a few years ago, plus various times when pollution has come in from other areas.

Likewise, 1.1 degrees may not be a lot – but if you are in a cycle of rising temperatures anyway then it does become important if it causes the climate to hit a tipping point. If temperatures were falling, then that 1.1 degree would actually be a benfit…

Overall, the article suggests that only raw data should be used and considers any adjustments to be bad – not true. Data itself is not as important as context – and that context should be scientific, not political.

No, even if the article is accurate – I'll not comment on that – the context is such that I would not trust it due to political bias and general lack of understanding in the use of data.

Bowman19 Feb 2017 6:49 a.m. PST

On Feb 4 David Rose of the Daily Mail writes an article on the DM's internet publication, Mail on Sunday.

Unlike what Cachique suggests, over the next few days the article gets savaged by others for being inaccurate, misleading and containing "demonstrably false statements", including a made up graph.

link

Including the links above.

Regardless of the universal condemnation, both Brietbart and American Thinker run with the "false statements" from Rose's article. In the case of American Thinker on Feb 18 as the OP's link shows. No word that the original article is bogus? No editorial integrity? No fact checking?

Even science know-nothing Lamar Smith gets into the act, see above.

American Thinker adds further incorrect info by making up stuff about CERN and the Clouds program. It includes a provocative quote by someone called Carslaw. However these quotes are quite different from those given by Jasper Kirkby, the actual head of CERN's study. Of course American Thinker doesn't even bother to ask him or print his comments.

See links above.

Of course the NOAA data (from 2015, and independently corroborated in 2017) seems to be the same as the datasets from NASA and the Hadley Center.

Oh oh, Skippy indeed!

Nick Bowler19 Feb 2017 12:52 p.m. PST

This is what I was hoping the thread referred to: link

JSchutt19 Feb 2017 4:56 p.m. PST
zoneofcontrol19 Feb 2017 5:59 p.m. PST

Oh, no! Now they are blaming it on kangaroos?!?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.