StoneMtnMinis | 18 Feb 2017 9:58 a.m. PST |
Another nail in the coffin……. link |
Gunfreak | 18 Feb 2017 10:23 a.m. PST |
Wow American thinker. Why not use stormfront as a source to show how nazism is great. |
Cacique Caribe | 18 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 |
skippy0001 | 18 Feb 2017 11:39 a.m. PST |
I always figured it may be something other than the radical left was promoting. |
Gunfreak | 18 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. |
jdginaz | 18 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 Caribe | 18 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 | 18 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. |
jdginaz | 18 Feb 2017 4:08 p.m. PST |
Just another weak excuse for ignoring the data. |
JSchutt | 18 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… |
zoneofcontrol | 18 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 Caribe | 18 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 |
Bowman | 18 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. |
Bowman | 18 Feb 2017 9:58 p.m. PST |
|
Bowman | 18 Feb 2017 10:11 p.m. PST |
|
Bowman | 18 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? |
GarrisonMiniatures | 19 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. |
Bowman | 19 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 Bowler | 19 Feb 2017 12:52 p.m. PST |
This is what I was hoping the thread referred to: link |
JSchutt | 19 Feb 2017 4:56 p.m. PST |
|
zoneofcontrol | 19 Feb 2017 5:59 p.m. PST |
Oh, no! Now they are blaming it on kangaroos?!? |