Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is Global Warming a . . .
Topic Started: Mar 4 2008, 04:20 PM (1,300 Views)
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 06:45 PM
So the solution to your equation is to let someone decide what the truth is ahead of time and then only tell you about that part?

Nice.

No. As I said, I am in favor of reporting every point of view once in a while. It is just the disparity in coverage between the scientific publications and public news that I object to.

There is no such thing as unbiased news, since the biggest source of bias is in the selection of which news are reported. The only thing the news can do to be as unbiased as possible is to give each topic a proportionate coverage.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Klaus
Mar 5 2008, 08:31 AM

The Flat Earth Society is an organization which claims that the earth is flat.

Should the news refer to their position whenever they report anything that implicitly assumes that the earth is not flat? Should they be "balanced" and give equal coverage to both "sides"?

For every bizarre hypothesis there is a group of people who support it.

It is quite obvious nonsense to attempt to give equal coverage to the "flat earth hypothesis" and the "round earth hypothesis".

This does not mean that news can't report such things. Of course they can have an article as Aqua describes.

But there is a big difference between having an article once in a while that reports on outsider hypotheses, and the situation that in every article on the subject both sides are given equal coverage.

They should do whatever's relevant. That's pretty much the only criteria.

For example, if the story were about a partial eclipse, and they go a little into the shape of the Earth to describe the process, mentioning the Flat Earth Society's theories isn't at all relevant. It should be left out.

But if the article is about, say, a new theory about the shape of the earth, it may make sense to add the Flat Earth Society's "theories."

If the story is about the Flat Earth Society, well, I think it's obvious whether or not to cite their work. :wink:

They should go after what's relevant, not necessarily what's accurate. Judgments on accuracy is the responsibility of the reader and not the journalist. And they can't do that with an incomplete picture.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 12:49 PM
Which is what I asked you earlier, "What are you reading to make you believe some things".

Popular answers used to be:

1. The Torah
2. The Bible
3. The Koran
4. The Book of Mormon

In more recent times:
5. Peer reviewed scientific journals

Even more recently and increasingly, these days:
6. TNCR
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 08:49 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 08:43 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 08:31 AM
Kenny, what in the hell are you talking about?

We are talking about 4 things.

1. Truth.
2. What is reported in the "news".
3. What people believe to be truth, which is largely shaped by what they read in their favorite comfortable news sources, be they FOX or NYT.
4. News sources have bias and agendas.

Items 2 through 4 pull us away from item 1.

Sounds like what Klaus is telling us about in Europe is a better system.

Which is what I asked you earlier, "What are you reading to make you believe some things".

lb

Pollution is bad.
Less pollution is better.

There.
Read that.

I'm not getting into the dueling sources thing.
But knock yourself out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And I object to the disparity in coverage between the scientists who promote the notion of global warming and those who dispute it. Those who dispute it are being ignored, made fun of, their grant money is withheld, they are being vilified by those who disagree with them, all for political and monetary reasons. If the news wants to actually report the news, they should do an expose on the corruption within the scientific community, the political and financial pressures that are shaping this issue, and highlighting the motives of those who are trying to push agendas requiring for instance, that any scientist who speaks out against global warming be arrested, stripped of their positions, etc.

*That* would be news, Klaus. Right now you're complaining of a disparity in coverage, but you're not seeing what's actually being short changed.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Pollution is bad.
Less pollution is better.


CO2 isn't pollution. It's plant food.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 12:56 PM
Quote:
 
Pollution is bad.
Less pollution is better.


CO2 isn't pollution. It's plant food.

Hey, so is bull****. :D
You really don't want too much of it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 08:56 AM
Quote:
 
Pollution is bad.
Less pollution is better.


CO2 isn't pollution. It's plant food.

Physicists don't hog all the fun. With environmental science too, it's all about Relativity.

Water's essential to human survival but that doesn't mean it can't be assigned its own LD50.

CO2 can surely kill you and other things. And you're right, plants use it too. What you focus on all depends on the context.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
What you focus on all depends on the context.


Glad you have acknowledge that at least, since context is what this is all about. I will assume now that you'll stop tossing pollution into this as if it has some sort of meaning to this discussion, then.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 09:02 AM
Quote:
 
What you focus on all depends on the context.


Glad you have acknowledge that at least, since context is what this is all about. I will assume now that you'll stop tossing pollution into this as if it has some sort of meaning to this discussion, then.

Some things are either not as clear cut as you're suggesting, or they are, but they go the other way.

Pollution is entirely relevant within the context of global warming.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Klaus
Mar 5 2008, 11:44 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 06:35 PM
Quote:
 
The Flat Earth Society is an organization which claims that the earth is flat.

Should the news refer to their position whenever they report anything that implicitly assume that the earth is not flat? Should they be "balanced" and give equal coverage to both "sides"?


You're making ridiculous comparisons, Klaus. You're trying to compare those who do not agree with your views on global warming with flat earthers, and then claiming that reporting any information scientists come up with that disputes your view is the equivalent of having to mention flat earthers every time the earth is discussed. That's intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

No, I didn't make this comparison at all.

The point of my example was to show that it is nonsense to demand that all points of view must be given equal coverage.

More generally, my point is that balance becomes bias if, as in the US news, the proportion of news coverage of both sides on global warming does not at all correspond to the proportions of both points of view in the scientific community.

On this particular point, I have to agree with Larry.

When any new idea is introduced, it's almost always a minority viewpoint. If you stifle it, it has no chance to take hold.

Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 08:54 AM
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 08:49 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 08:43 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 08:31 AM
Kenny, what in the hell are you talking about?

We are talking about 4 things.

1. Truth.
2. What is reported in the "news".
3. What people believe to be truth, which is largely shaped by what they read in their favorite comfortable news sources, be they FOX or NYT.
4. News sources have bias and agendas.

Items 2 through 4 pull us away from item 1.

Sounds like what Klaus is telling us about in Europe is a better system.

Which is what I asked you earlier, "What are you reading to make you believe some things".

lb

Pollution is bad.
Less pollution is better.

There.
Read that.

I'm not getting into the dueling sources thing.
But knock yourself out.

Kenny,

I am not dueling, I agree that pollution is bad, and I am not arguing what the cause of global warming is if there is global warming.

You said that if GW is happening it is the worse thing ever to befall mankind, and I am wondering how you arrived at that conclusion. I am not the slightest bit concerned if GW is happening or when it will happen if it does. It does concern me though when I see someone toss a candy wrapper or a cigarette butt out a car window.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I made it up lb.

I have no sources for you to discredit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 09:16 AM
I made it up lb.

I have no sources for you to discredit.

So you don't believe that global warming is a concern?

Screw the sources BS, just your opinion.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 12:13 PM

I am not dueling, I agree that pollution is bad

You said that if GW is happening it is the worse thing ever


Actually according to some accounts pollution (volcanic ash, or debris from a meteor impact) has caused a large drop in global temperatures.

Good and bad in this case depend on your point of view. If you just want to lower global temperatures pollution can come in handy.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 09:31 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 09:16 AM
I made it up lb.

I have no sources for you to discredit.

So you don't believe that global warming is a concern?

Screw the sources BS, just your opinion.

lb

Yes I think GW is a concern.

Why ask?

And why ask what I'm reading?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 09:49 AM
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 09:31 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 09:16 AM
I made it up lb.

I have no sources for you to discredit.

So you don't believe that global warming is a concern?

Screw the sources BS, just your opinion.

lb

Yes I think GW is a concern.

Why ask?

And why ask what I'm reading?

OK, forget what you are reading, that was just a phrase I used. I could have said what are you watching or what are you hearing. The question was what makes you think it is the worse thing ever?

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
What makes me think GW is super duper bad?
Just my mind.
What makes you ask?

If you don't think GW ain't so bad as long as you live on high ground, are not a polar bear, got guns, a bunch of gold and a farm to feed your kids, just say so.

IOW what are you getting at?
Why the question, "Why, Kenny, do you think GW is so bad?"
Odd question to ask.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 12:45 PM
What makes me think GW is super duper bad?
Just my mind.
What makes you ask?

If you don't think GW ain't so bad as long as you live on high ground, are not a polar bear, got guns, a bunch of gold and a farm to feed your kids, just say so.

IOW what are you getting at?
Why the question, "Why, Kenny, do you think GW is so bad?"
Odd question to ask.

Worse than nuclear war?

Worse than a global pandemic?

Worse than another world war fought with conventional weapons?

FWIW, we live in a period of global warming, and have enjoyed quite nicely, thank you...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Kenny,

If there is global warming and it is man made, then global warming will cure the problem.

The problem I see is that there are too many people on this planet to support in the lifestyles that they are demanding. From the packaging material for their products all the way to the chemicals that are being flushed down the sewers into the water system are pollutants many times worse IMO than the CO2 emissions. I see huge eco-systems being destroyed so people in other areas can have recreation water. It makes me sick to see the frenzy of the agriculture switching acreage from food production to ethanol production without clearly knowing that they are doing the right thing or if they are doing it for nothing.

If there is global warming, no matter what the cause, the earth and mankind will evolve. I don't see it as the greatest disaster to befall mankind and the Earth will not self destruct.

If it pi$$es you off that I asked a question and you don't want to be taken serious ever, just say so and I will put you on the list of people to ignore.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 11:15 AM
Kenny,

If there is global warming and it is man made, then global warming will cure the problem.

The problem I see is that there are too many people on this planet to support in the lifestyles that they are demanding. From the packaging material for their products all the way to the chemicals that are being flushed down the sewers into the water system are pollutants many times worse IMO than the CO2 emissions. I see huge eco-systems being destroyed so people in other areas can have recreation water. It makes me sick to see the frenzy of the agriculture switching acreage from food production to ethanol production without clearly knowing that they are doing the right thing or if they are doing it for nothing.

If there is global warming, no matter what the cause, the earth and mankind will evolve. I don't see it as the greatest disaster to befall mankind and the Earth will not self destruct.

If it pi$$es you off that I asked a question and you don't want to be taken serious ever, just say so and I will put you on the list of people to ignore.

lb

I'm not pi$$ed off at all.
I just see so many source-duels here, and that seemed to be where you were headed by asking what I'm reading.

I feel the same way you do about all that stuff.

But to say global warming will cure the problem is dumb.
Humans make themselves extinct. Problem solved? :doh:

Uhm, maybe we can prevent that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Mar 5 2008, 11:10 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 12:45 PM
What makes me think GW is super duper bad?
Just my mind.
What makes you ask?

If you don't think GW ain't so bad as long as you live on high ground, are not a polar bear, got guns, a bunch of gold and a farm to feed your kids, just say so.

IOW what are you getting at?
Why the question, "Why, Kenny, do you think GW is so bad?"
Odd question to ask.

Worse than nuclear war?

Worse than a global pandemic?

Worse than another world war fought with conventional weapons?

FWIW, we live in a period of global warming, and have enjoyed quite nicely, thank you...

And most people could choose cars that use less gas and produce lower emissions, then limit their speed.

Lots of stuff can be done to help if more people cared more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 11:22 AM

But to say global warming will cure the problem is dumb.
Humans make themselves extinct. Problem solved? :doh:

Uhm, maybe we can prevent that.

If there is global warming and if it is man made, man will not become extinct but only reduced in volume. This will reduce the cause and the earth will cycle back. The earth is resilient and able to cleanse and heal itself of natural ailments.

History has proven time and time again that man in his inept attempts to cure a percieved problem only makes things worse for future generations.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Maybe the Global Warming Awards should be given out to those responsible for recent genocides, then.

Damn dirty human buggers... More prolific than horny squirrels... Hrmph.... :angry:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
lb1
Mar 5 2008, 11:36 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 11:22 AM

But to say global warming will cure the problem is dumb.
Humans make themselves extinct. Problem solved? :doh:

Uhm, maybe we can prevent that.

If there is global warming and if it is man made, man will not become extinct but only reduced in volume. This will reduce the cause and the earth will cycle back. The earth is resilient and able to cleanse and heal itself of natural ailments.

History has proven time and time again that man in his inept attempts to cure a percieved problem only makes things worse for future generations.

lb

Why not go buy a hybrid car or do other things besides throw your hands up into the air?

Now you sound like one of those people who say, "It is written."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply