The Conspiracy Theory

ballysmate

Daz555 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions.

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When it comes to opinions it is also worth noting that there is no right to have an opinion heard, nor is there a right to have an opinion respected.

I don't quite follow you on that one. :?
Facts are absolute, they are true or not. Two people can infer different things from the same facts, giving rise to differing opinions.

capt_slog

Just backing up a bit to a couple of weeks ago...

It was argued on this thread that gravity did not exist and was "just densities settling" (ffs :roll: ). I'd forgotten at the time, but since remembered this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

which is basically an experiment which shows gravity working sideways.

ai_1

Capt Slog wrote:

Just backing up a bit to a couple of weeks ago...

It was argued on this thread that gravity did not exist and was "just densities settling" (ffs :roll: ). I'd forgotten at the time, but since remembered this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

which is basically an experiment which shows gravity working sideways.

It shows gravity "working", but it's not directly measuring the force of attraction due to the mass of the planet as a whole via torsion in the wire. Deflection in the wire is due to the force of attraction between the lead spheres. So there is no "working sideways" as such, it's simply a matter of defining your frame of reference.

ai_1

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

While people do indeed have the right and ability to form their own opinions, it is unfortunately the case that huge swathes of the public can be relied upon to form those opinions on the basis of wishful thinking, flawed intuition, partial/skewed information, and the personalities of key supporters of each position. Giving both sides of an argument is all very well, except that in the media this typically has the effect of legitimising discredited minority views and putting them on a par with the consensus position.

Absolutely. Much better just to tell them what their betters have worked out to be true and ban all argument. After all, that approach has worked pretty well for institutions as diverse as the Spanish Inquisition, The Nazi Party and the Soviet Communist Party. Oh hang on, not much diversity there actually...

Now re-read the excerpt from my post that you've quoted and see if perhaps your argument actually agrees with my comment as much or more than it discredits it.

Like I said, people are vulnerable to accepting ideas based on "wishful thinking, flawed intuition, partial/skewed information, and the personalities of key supporters". That's exactly how you end up with Nazis and lack of diversity. You get a population that feel wronged, you get a great orator to tell them how things should be and that they are a great people. Give them a story they like and the majority will buy it. Emotion and self interest are huge stumbling blocks between public perception and reality. So, broadcasting alternative conclusions to complex arguments in bite size incomplete chunks to a public ill-equipped to differentiate between the logical aspects of the argument almost guarantees that they'll base they're allegiance on emotion, wishful thinking, flawed intuition, and personalities. Typically this ends up in confusion and inaction. In other cases it ends up generating fanatical groups like white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and other cults of all sorts (including religions). This is what produces guys like Manc33 or at least like the guy he purports to be (depending on whether you think he's trolling).

capt_slog

Ai_1 wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Just backing up a bit to a couple of weeks ago...

It was argued on this thread that gravity did not exist and was "just densities settling" (ffs :roll: ). I'd forgotten at the time, but since remembered this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

which is basically an experiment which shows gravity working sideways.

It shows gravity "working", but it's not directly measuring the force of attraction due to the mass of the planet as a whole via torsion in the wire. Deflection in the wire is due to the force of attraction between the lead spheres. So there is no "working sideways" as such, it's simply a matter of defining your frame of reference.

The argument though, was that gravity didn't exist. By moving the frame of reference sideways, this shows that "objects settle due to their relative densities" is not the case, and it does.

pblakeney

Daz555 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions.

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When it comes to opinions it is also worth noting that there is no right to have an opinion heard, nor is there a right to have an opinion respected.

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

ai_1

Capt Slog wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Just backing up a bit to a couple of weeks ago...

It was argued on this thread that gravity did not exist and was "just densities settling" (ffs :roll: ). I'd forgotten at the time, but since remembered this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

which is basically an experiment which shows gravity working sideways.

It shows gravity "working", but it's not directly measuring the force of attraction due to the mass of the planet as a whole via torsion in the wire. Deflection in the wire is due to the force of attraction between the lead spheres. So there is no "working sideways" as such, it's simply a matter of defining your frame of reference.

The argument though, was that gravity didn't exist. By moving the frame of reference sideways, this shows that "objects settle due to their relative densities" is not the case, and it does.

Ah right. Apologies, I missed your point first time around. :oops:

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

Must confess that I only read the Telegraph up until my free access runs out,

The DT website's 20 articles per month limit is laughably easy to get round. Just read 20 stories, then delete your cookies and then you start again at 0.

Ballysmate wrote:

but is the fact that it publishes such articles, and I assume it also covers pro GW stories as well, not a good thing. GW is not an exact science, insofar that it is still hypothesis and can't predict results. By giving counter arguments it allows its readership to form their own view, rather than have it spoon fed.

GW is not a hypothesis, it is a fully fledged theory. The basic tenet that putting CO2 into the atmosphere warms the planet is not controversial amongst scientists. Exactly how far warming will go, on the other hand, is less certain, which is why there is a range of predicted values. So far, the global mean surface temperature has stayed within the range of predicted values of the vast majority of models. The fact that modelling cannot give a value for any given year to within, say 0.05 C, does not mean that GW is a hypothesis rather than a theory any more than the fact that we can't predict what new species will exist in the future means that evolution is a hypothesis and not a theory.

The Daily Telegraph has published many articles accusing scientists of fiddling data to mislead the public, especially those articles written by Booker and Delingpole. This is out-and-out conspiracy theory territory and plain wrong. Go onto youtube and watch any of Kevin Cowtan's videos on data handling in which he destroys Booker's articles. The problem is that Booker's articles might be read by a million people, whereas a scientist's youtube video will get a tiny % of that number.

Ballysmate wrote:

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions*.

That means that people should be given reliable information. Cherry-picking journalists don't do that. They can't even be bothered to check out the facts. All it would take is 5 minutes to write an e-mail to the relevant agencies (NOAA, Met Office) to ask why they have handled data in a certain way.

ai_1

johnfinch wrote:

...

Ballysmate wrote:

but is the fact that it publishes such articles, and I assume it also covers pro GW stories as well, not a good thing. GW is not an exact science, insofar that it is still hypothesis and can't predict results. By giving counter arguments it allows its readership to form their own view, rather than have it spoon fed.

GW is not a hypothesis, it is a fully fledged theory. The basic tenet that putting CO2 into the atmosphere warms the planet is not controversial amongst scientists. Exactly how far warming will go, on the other hand, is less certain, which is why there is a range of predicted values. So far, the global mean surface temperature has stayed within the range of predicted values of the vast majority of models. The fact that modelling cannot give a value for any given year to within, say 0.05 C, does not mean that GW is a hypothesis rather than a theory any more than the fact that we can't predict what new species will exist in the future means that evolution is a hypothesis and not a theory.

Agreed

ballysmate

Finchy, I will start deleting my cookie. Why didn't I think of that, Doh!!

johnfinch wrote:

That means that people should be given reliable information. Cherry-picking journalists don't do that. They can't even be bothered to check out the facts. All it would take is 5 minutes to write an e-mail to the relevant agencies (NOAA, Met Office) to ask why they have handled data in a certain way.

If as you say they publish factually inaccurate information, that is a whole different ball game to publishing opinions that fall outside the norm.

ai_1

Ballysmate wrote:

Finchy, I will start deleting my cookie. Why didn't I think of that, Doh!!

johnfinch wrote:

That means that people should be given reliable information. Cherry-picking journalists don't do that. They can't even be bothered to check out the facts. All it would take is 5 minutes to write an e-mail to the relevant agencies (NOAA, Met Office) to ask why they have handled data in a certain way.

If as you say they publish factually inaccurate information, that is a whole different ball game to publishing opinions that fall outside the norm.

I think we may be looking at this in slightly different ways.
I think it's factually inaccurate to say that the science behind global climate change is controversial. The problem is that most of those putting forth opposing views are easily discredited in the scientific community on examination of their arguments, but in the public arena, no-one wants to spend the time or effort to listen to the scientific argument in any detail so they assume both sides have a valid position and that it's a matter of opinion.

What if this was about smoking? Would you say that we should listen to and publish material from smokers and PR companies who suggest that it is still a matter of opinion whether smoking is bad for your health? This isn't far fetched, it still happens in many places, although I think there is no longer tolerance in the prosperous West.
Both the health impact of smoking and climate change are subjects which have been denied for years by those with a vested interest despite increasingly convincing evidence of their validity. Neither is controversial within the scientific community due to the strength of the arguments. However small numbers of scientists are employed by vested interests to produce contradictory material and muddy the water.

ddraver

delete wrong thread

briantrumpet

johnfinch wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Must confess that I only read the Telegraph up until my free access runs out,

The DT website's 20 articles per month limit is laughably easy to get round. Just read 20 stories, then delete your cookies and then you start again at 0.

Even easier - don't allow cookies in the first place, the site still works. Though it's a shame the content's so poor these days.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Finchy, I will start deleting my cookie. Why didn't I think of that, Doh!!

Or shop at Waitrose and get the Telegraph (and a coffee) for free. Works for me.

slowmart

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Finchy, I will start deleting my cookie. Why didn't I think of that, Doh!!

Or shop at Waitrose and get the Telegraph (and a coffee) for free. Works for me.

ballysmate

Back on topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... files.html

ai_1

Ballysmate wrote:

Back on topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... files.html

Oh fine. I'm convinced

Daz555

Can we change the title to get rid of the abused term "theory".

The nonsense in this thread is far from being granted the honour of being theory.

ai_1

Daz555 wrote:

Can we change the title to get rid of the abused term "theory".

The nonsense in this thread is far from being granted the honour of being theory.

Good point.
At best most of these "conspiracy theories" are hypotheses, and far fetched ones at that.

mr_goo

My favourite story is this one.

http://criticalbelievers.proboards.com/thread/11709

Plus this building down the road in Christchurch. Nobody, not even the Council know what it's really for, just that it is Government owned. I have never seen any cars or personnel inside the compound, but the grass seems to get cut, so someone does turn up. Could be a depository for government records I suppose.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.740793,-1.744295,3a,75y,194.84h,89.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAZMKXFMxDNwIzxdPBOfATA!2e0?hl=en

bompington

The Gore factory in Dundee. It's a large, dark building; you never see any cars there, or any vehicles coming and going; it's surrounded by a large grassy area with mysterious mounds. Unlike every other major employer in Dundee, which is a bit of an oversized village, no-one I know knows anyone who works there.

I'm a bit surprised it actually shows up on street view... ;-)

mr_goo

Boscombe Down is a strange case. It is an RAF station and you can park up outside the fence and watch the planes, mostly Qinetic owned and contracted to the Test Pilot School. However there are notices all around that photography and video is strictly prohibited. This used to be policed by the MoD quite strictly, but from the number of photos on the interweb they are clearly not getting everyone.
In regards to the previous post about the supposed crash of a stealth plane in the 90s. I used to work in Salisbury (few miles away) and one of my colleagues was a retired professional pilot who lived out on the plains. He said that the base is subject to quite a lot of 'movements' in the early hours of the morning and even claimed that he once saw a large triangular shaped plane being escorted by 4x Stealth Fighters, Aurora? Who knows.

imposter2.0

Boscombe Down is far too 'public' for anything remotely confidential to be going on there - even at night. You can overlook it from the A303 and go right up to the perimeter fence, so it's never going to be high on the list of preferred options for a 'secret stealth base'. It also has far too many civilian contractors to keep anything there a 'military' secret.

pinno

Whether you believe in Climate change caused by man's activities or not, we should all take the precautionary principle.

florerider

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Finchy, I will start deleting my cookie. Why didn't I think of that, Doh!!

Or shop at Waitrose and get the Telegraph (and a coffee) for free. Works for me.

Preumably that's a white coffee with the Telegraph

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Finchy, I will start deleting my cookie. Why didn't I think of that, Doh!!

Or shop at Waitrose and get the Telegraph (and a coffee) for free. Works for me.

Nice to see you supporting an employee-owned enterprise. Good for you, comrade.

ballysmate

Here's one just for Finchy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1156 ... gures.html

finchy

^^^ They've done that one already. Anthony Watts did a review of US temperature records and accidentally managed to confirm them.

Then BEST reviewed world temperature records after the Climategate non-story. The lead author, Richard Muller declared that temperature records weren't reliable, took some money from the denialist Koch brothers, then found out that actually, wait, there had been no fiddling of the data and the temperature records could be trusted.

There's a climate treaty to be discussed later this year. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is bound to release their findings just before the treaty. The right-wing media will jump up and down and make a massive fuss if there is just the tiniest disagreement between the "5 leading scientists" and the main agencies (and there will be some disagreements because not everyone will handle the data in exactly the same way). The damage being done, the "scandal" will blow over and be completely debunked until the next manufactured controversy is needed.

We're doing massive damage to our planet and these ar5ehole5 are lying and lying and lying again to the public.

If you've got 5 minutes to spare, watch this

If you've got 10 minutes to spare, try this one.

orraloon

It's not the same without Him, is it?

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

It's not the same without Him, is it?

He'll be back - probably.