Thoughts on climate change?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I only want to jail the most prolific climate change deniers with malicious intent.

@ZeusAres42

Hi ZeusArea42,

"Jail climate change denier leaders, the merchants of doubt." Dreamer

"You're talking about jailing and punishing everyday normal people for having hardened views that are just different from yours but are well-intentioned people. " ZeusArea42

Strawman argument, these people did not have good intentions. That is the difference between disinformation and misinformation. Disinformation is when a person for money, power, or malice deliberately spreads falsehoods. Those are the people that need to be jailed. Lives are at stake.

Misinformation is accidentally or with good intentions spreading falsehoods. Maybe I should have made this more clear in my original post, instead I focused on ocean acidification and the sixth mass extinction. 

Germany already has laws in place for people who deny the holocaust. This would be the template, therefore a maximum of five years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853

Here is an article that supports my point of view for jailing climate change deniers. If only to show my idea is not absurd nor fringe.

"and there is the body of purulent pundits, paid sponsors, and corporate grifters who exploit the smallest uncertainty at the edges of a settled science." Adam Weinstein 2014

https://www.gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

The idea that people make money by deliberately spreading falsehoods is anti-democratic and anti-capitalistic. This is economic rent. Fraud is illegal already. Right now disinformation campaigns are legal grift. Let's take your argument further not to jail climate change deniers. Let's legalize Ponzi schemes and all fraud.

This discussion is taking longer than expected, multiple people responding to me. I am going to take a day off from posting, see you tomorrow. Can we at least agree on gentler measures like de-platforming prolific climate change deniers and shutting down the Heartland Institute for example?

Thank you for continuing the conversation.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;I'm not being abusive. 

Well in that case I take it that you also dont tell lies and dont avoid questions just as you said. Your words were I dont avoid questions. And it is reasonable to not answer worthless dumb questions but I think most people would say that these questions are reasonable and apply reasonably to the debate about weather or not bombs went off on 911 in the world trade center.

So in that case would you mind so humbly to answer these questions.

Question 1 Do you believe that there were bombs in the world trade centre that went off on 911?

Question 2: Is the explosion at the base of the world trade centre shown in the video over dubed?

Question 3: Is Rodriguez an extreme anti government militant and did he lie about being the last to get out and can he be trusted to tell the truth?

Question 4: How many people in the video said there were bombs that went off?

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

Question 1 Do you believe that there were bombs in the world trade centre that went off on 911?

Yes. Multiple eye-witnesses reported bombs and explosions. In the specific case of WTC 7, several key witnesses testified that the lobby had been destroyed by a bomb.

Question 2: Is the explosion at the base of the world trade centre shown in the video over dubed?

I don't know which video you're referring to.

Question 3: Is Rodriguez an extreme anti government militant

Not to my knowledge. The Republicans tried to recruit him into politics after 9/11. He seems like a normal guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Question 4: How many people in the video said there were bombs that went off?

Again, I don't know which video you're referring to. I've personally read multiple eye-witness reports from a variety of sources which claim there were bombs and/or "secondary devices" in the buildings, including most prominently firefighters and emergency paramedics. All of the eye-witness testimony from the day was consistent with controlled demolition.  Much of it has since disappeared from the internet. At one stage I had a long list of all the testimonies, but I can no longer find it.

Believe me or not, what the government and NIST claimed happened to those buildings is not physically possible. They were symmetrical, gravity-driven collapses, and the only feasible explanation for them is if something cut through the core steel support columns. Early examinations of the WTC steel seem to confirm this is exactly what happened.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I talked two people who know more about the topic than me.

@MayCaesar

There is some merit to what you are saying. I retract my claim about the five million deaths. This statement was premature. I apologize.

The situation is confusing and it is easy to cherry pick whichever conclusion you want. I blame the people and media who made the attention getting headlines, Bloomberg for example and the Independent. I am sorry I made the weak claim. Thank you for the correction.

 I have a pretty good idea of what the science says. I've read Heads in the Sand climate change denial. Watched Inconvenient Truth. Taken the edx101 denial course, played the Cranky Uncle game, and read a lot of articles on climate change. Yet, I still make mistakes.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11059691-climate-change-denial

On the other hand, the people who knew more about climate change said the situation was actually worse than I thought. That if the temperature got to 6 degree Celsius change that many areas would become death zones. Most importantly if nothing is done and current trends continue we will reach 6 degree Celsius. That being said I am more determined than ever to see action taken and see people like David Koch go to jail. Pity he died before he could face justice.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

"Jail climate change denier leaders, the merchants of doubt." Dreamer

"You're talking about jailing and punishing everyday normal people for having hardened views that are just different from yours but are well-intentioned people. " ZeusArea42

Strawman argument, these people did not have good intentions.

It we put people in jail for having ridiculous opinions, you'd be in for at least 20 years. You're literally advocating a totalitarian state. Being wrong about something isn't a criminal offence. Even lying about something isn't a criminal offence. And what even defines a "climate change denier leader" in the first place? 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I was hoping the focus would be more on being in the middle of sixth mass extinction and solutions.

@Nomenclature

Hi Nomenclature,

Seems I left jailing climate change denial leaders too open ended and not explicit enough. Therefore, this has become the focus of the debate. I did specifically mention the merchants of doubt. There is the toxic ten. I also mentioned David Koch. You know the multi-millionaires or richer who get rich by spreading disinformation for profit and power.

"The Toxic Ten How 10 fringe publishers fuel 69% of digital climate change denial"

https://counterhate.com/research/the-toxic-ten/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz--drdXR3X6mhuHLg7A_rQqoJwRa6_7DaBa3WfIRmnrPS6toDQu47HB7FYz7wVG0V9V1vJZW

No, I wouldn't and neither would anyone on this website because none of us are multi-millionaires getting rich off of disinformation. The magnitude matters. Think of a radio station broad casting. How many listeners do you think listen to a 50kW radio station? Now compare that to us talking on a debate site. A site designed for us to flesh our prototype ideas and make mistakes. Mistakes are useful by the way.

To give an idea BBC World Services has 188 million weekly listeners. If they make a mistake and spread misinformation that a huge audience. Each one of our post has what maybe 100 views on average? Maybe less? That a million fold difference. Thus a false analogy.

"Even lying about something isn't a criminal offence." Nomenclature

That's called fraud. Lying is sometimes a criminal offense. We should do something about the Toxic Ten. I suggested jailing, do you have a better idea?

 

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

 I also mentioned David Koch. You know the multi-millionaires or richer who get rich by spreading disinformation for profit and power

I don't disagree in the slightest that Koch is a scumbag, but the problem here is that you play right into his hands when you demand that he -- and others like him -- be jailed. Then you become the bad guy. You become the totalitarian looking to shut down freedom of speech and he becomes the hero. Understand? I'm not for a moment suggesting public disinformation isn't a problem. In fact, it extends far further than even you are aware of. However it is not a feasible solution to jail people for propaganda, if for no other reason than because the entire lifeblood of the present system is propaganda. Since the 1930s, when writers like Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were prevalent, propaganda has been turned into a science, and it is used by governments and corporations alike to mislead the public. Jail Koch for climate denial and you'd also have to jail most US presidents for warmongering.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

It's not a straw man as I responded to what you had said. If you had said what you meant in the first place then my response would have been different. 

As for what for what you are talking about that is to do with fraudulent behavior within the scientific community and sometimes outside of it. 
 
These days they often get caught out relatively quickly via being exposed by their peers, fined, ect and probably even jailed in some cases. These measures already exist in pleases. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Your correct on this one.

@Nomenclature

I am sorry I retract my statement about the eight million fossil fuel air pollution deaths. Thank you for the correction.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

It's no problem. Look, I agree with your sentiments about climate change denial, but you have to be very careful when you're arguing with people who don't care what they do to the planet or each other. They see argumentation as a game to win, not as a methodology of establishing who is right and who is wrong.

John_C_87

@Cringe_Train

The Dictionaries definition of Climate Change is incomplete. The phrase climate change also describes change in the air of a locality (atmosphere) in a court and political arena set by a politician or lawyers in which legal arguments are heard. It is a violation of a person’s United States Constitutional Right to stop he is securing of a liberty from the crime of others, when we not as a group are being held back to form a more perfect connection to established justice. This by addressing fact and truth that is accumulated by the assembly of words. This action is not only a higher crime then the global idea of violation of Human Right “Freedom of Speech.” it is a possibility of obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy. It was in calls room instructing “English Grammar” we had been introduced to the writings of “William Shakespeare “who formulate words never heard or seen before in his writings to describe events. Those words endured time and the changes of English grammar to be in use Centuries later as truth and fact.

Who is fooling who?

Who lies to who?

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

FYI, if you are interested I highly recommend reading "How to read a paper: The Basics of Evidence Medicine and Healthcare, 6th Edition", https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Paper-Evidence-based-Healthcare/dp/111948474X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=36FTGW57XTAJ9&keywords=how+to+read+a+paper+trisha+greenhalgh&qid=1676929642&sprefix=how+to+read+a+poaper,aps,78&sr=8-1

I know this book is a reference to the medical profession. Nonetheless, this is still to do with how to read scientific literature. And I think you will find it very interesting.

That being said, you weren't that far off the mark. Your main mistakes here were being rather vague and quoting a piece of the literature out of context. No big deal but as Nom said this plays into other people's hands that like to deliberately mislead the debate and take you down a rabbit hole.

Moreover, people were wrong and fallacious here about you citing authority as being fallacious (argumentum ad logicam on their part). Lots of people make this mistake (especially those that are new to the concept of fallacies):

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority (Argumentum Ad verecundiam)

Lastly, just a tip regarding debates about literature when one tries to take you down a rabbit hole here and/or reframe your argument as of having little credibility. Remember that is not necessary to read or understand all the ins and out of the literature (unless you are some hardcore stats nerd that likes all this stuff) to accept the scientific reality of what a legitimate council of experts within their respected scientific field manages to tell you very explicitly in very plain English! By that logic then every patient must read the whole medical literature regarding their diagnosis to accept and/or have any opinion on it and they will always be wrong if they haven't done this. Might as well be the moto eh @MayCaesar?

@Dreamer, your mistakes were being vague and quoting a legitimate field of experts out of context. Just be careful with this. It really is that simple.

 

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

There is some merit to what you are saying. I retract my claim about the five million deaths. This statement was premature. I apologize.

The situation is confusing and it is easy to cherry pick whichever conclusion you want. I blame the people and media who made the attention getting headlines, Bloomberg for example and the Independent. I am sorry I made the weak claim. Thank you for the correction.

 I have a pretty good idea of what the science says. I've read Heads in the Sand climate change denial. Watched Inconvenient Truth. Taken the edx101 denial course, played the Cranky Uncle game, and read a lot of articles on climate change. Yet, I still make mistakes.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11059691-climate-change-denial

On the other hand, the people who knew more about climate change said the situation was actually worse than I thought. That if the temperature got to 6 degree Celsius change that many areas would become death zones. Most importantly if nothing is done and current trends continue we will reach 6 degree Celsius. That being said I am more determined than ever to see action taken and see people like David Koch go to jail. Pity he died before he could face justice.

Excuse me, but you have not presented anything here in support of you "having a pretty good idea of what the science says", for all the sources here are unscientific. "Inconvenient Truth"? That is a political piece that contains claims about the shown plots contradicting the claims in the original sources of those plots.

You "still make mistakes"? My friend, the "5 million deaths" claim you made is not just some mistake: you were off by multiple orders of magnitude. Imagine if I said that I am an expert in planetary astrophysics, and made the claim that the Earth's radius is 10 km. This is the degree to which your claim was wrong. You cannot have a pretty good idea about a scientific field while making such horrible blunders. You are not a chess master if you blunder a queen in your every game.

I think that it is you who should go to jail, as you want to apply violence to know who know a lot more than you, because their knowledge leads them to conclusions different from yours. It is pretty close to what is called the "incitement of violence", which is criminalized in most countries.
I personally do not think that anyone should go to jail for saying anything, but if you do want to go down that rabbit hole, then you should be one of the first few jailed. And it is in your interest to have a judge more knowledgeable about his field than you, so he does not accidentally sentence you to 5 million years in jail.

It is quite a strange sentiment (that many people agree with for some weird reason) that you can be deeply wrong about something, but as long as your intentions are good, everything is fine. What did one of the darlings of this kind of people say? "It is not very important to be factually right", something along these lines? Indeed, who cares if the Earth is flat or not: the important thing is that it being flat aligns with your goody religion, so time to burn at a stake everyone who disagrees.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Climate Change is real. That doesn't mean Climate Extremism is OK.

@Dreamer
Regarding deaths from temperature increases, as Bjorn Lomborg points out:

The total impact of more than 116,000 more heat deaths each year and almost 283,000 fewer cold deaths year is that by now, the temperature rise since 2000 means that for temperature-related mortality we are seeing 166,000 fewer deaths each year.

The science does suggest that the planet has gotten warmer.  However, that does not justify every Climate Change plan - and there are a bunch of crazy and expensive ideas out there.  First, every last Climate Change plan should be required to post how much their plan will change global temperatures and the cost to businesses, tax payers, etc.  A dirty secret is that if we had 0 CO2 emissions today, it would do little to reduce any of the anticipated global temperature increase by 2100.  From Heritage:

But here’s the key thing: Even if Americans were on board with this radical change in behavior and lifestyle, it wouldn’t change our climate.

In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.

Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century. 

So, even if there were 0 CO2 emissions in the world today it would only reduce the anticipated 3 - 6 degree Celsius increase by 0.278 degree Celsius by 2100.  That means that a lot of plans that cost trillions of dollars will have virtually no impact on global temperatures but create vast economic hardship by the poorest citizens.  That doesn't mean that we should do nothing, but we have to do honest cost-benefit analysis of the plans.  We have to be more open to mitigation efforts and distance ourselves from extreme plans that are incredibly expensive, and may make extremist happy, but in reality will not significantly change global temperatures at all.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

From Heritage

Which Heritage? This Heritage?

Overall, we rate the Heritage Foundation Right Biased based on conservative policy positions and funding from right-leaning organizations. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to promoting misleading claims regarding global warming and the health dangers associated with tobacco.

The Heritage Foundation has been criticized for taking positions that are favorable to the tobacco industry as well as for blocking action on climate change.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/

The Heritage Foundation has promoted false claims of voter fraud. Hans von Spakovsky who heads the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation has played an influential role in making alarmism about voter fraud mainstream in the Republican Party, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud.[76][77] His work, which claims voting fraud is rampant, has been discredited.[78]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Another Ad Hominem attack by @Nomenclature

@Nomenclature
I take it you don't like Heritage.  It doesn't matter if you like Heritage's point of view, the issue is if the facts in question are accurate.  In this case, you can quite literally, go to the U.N.'s  tool and plug the numbers in for yourself.  They have a public facing tool - though it doesn't have all the doodad's.  Now, you can say that the U.N. is wrong.  If so, then know that a lot of the data we have on climate change and the recommendations on how to deal with it, come from those reports.  

If you have any numbers on how much the global temperature would be reduced by having 0 CO2 emissions by 2100, please share.  Please know that the author of the Heritage article has testified before Congress a dozen different times on climate change issues.  But, I'm sure you'll provide evidence for your claim he is wrong.  Won't you?  I'm waiting.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
@MayCaesar
@Nomenclature
@ZeusAres42

The science does suggest that the planet has gotten warmer.  However, that does not justify every Climate Change plan - and there are a bunch of crazy and expensive ideas out there.  First, every last Climate Change plan should be required to post how much their plan will change global temperatures and the cost to businesses, tax payers, etc.  A dirty secret is that if we had 0 "Human" (suggestion) CO2 emissions today, it would do little to reduce any of the anticipated global temperature increase by 2100.  From Heritage:

Hense the mathmatic neccesity to fix the issue from "Pi" and the reason behind the mistake in algara Einstein with others have made in the past.

Suggestion as improvement to reach a perfection on the state of the union to established justice.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Your missing type one versus type II errors and how much disinformation is pumped out.

@MayCaesar

If we react to climate change and it is a false positive type I error, not too bad a mistake. On the other hand, a type II error false negative is much worse. That being said underestimating climate change is much worse than overestimating. I overestimated, the toxic ten underestimate.

Think patternicity, you hear a rustle in the bushes behind you:

I. You turn around, it is just the wind type one error false positive.

II. You ignore the rustle and it is a large hungry cat, false negative and much more costly mistake.

Social media acts like 24/7 spreaders of misinformation that helps a magnified minority spread disinformation. There is a major difference between two people talking and literally an audience of one other person.

Just look at the numbers from the Center for countering digital hate for toxic ten and disinformation dozen. Comparing my mistake to say Dr. Mercola or Breitbart is a false analogy. Another important fact, I admitted I was wrong, apologized, and thanked you for correcting me. Do you think Dr. Mercola or the owner of Breitbart would ever do that?

Barnardot

@Nomenclature

 Multiple eye-witnesses reported bombs and explosions.

See what I meen because no body said there were boms. Look at the video you posted because no body at all said that bombs went off and explosions doesn't meen bombs so you are 100% wrong and since you posted the video you have to be accountable for the total miss information that you posted. Look at the video for your self.

I don't know which video you're referring to.

Your lying because you know exactly which video because you posted it and it was re sent to you 4 times and you were advised 4 times that it was over dubbed with a fire ball. What a you are.

Not to my knowledge. The Republicans tried to recruit him into politics after 9/11. He seems like a normal guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

You meen not to the knowledge that you don't want to know. Any 3 year old retard can google Rodriguez to know that he is an Exstream government hater, con artist and and even the bomb baloney he was talking about was only very loose laughable circumstanstaial dog mess. So again unless you are a dim nut retard you are 100% lying.

Again, I don't know which video you're referring to.

Again you do, you posted it and you were pulled up on it not by just me but others. .

So now we go in to the ignorance mode and claim you dont know what Im talking about but you do dont you .

You see that is what happens when you decide to be such an exstreamist hater, everything you want to know is total trash so what you think is total trash and total trash comes out of your mouth and to cover your total trash you make up lies and try to deceive people all the time to get your self out of the poop. But you will never get yourself out of the poop unless you stop your Exstream baloney because Exstream and lying and deceiving are all the same thing. Bombs went off by the government in the WTC what a load of cringeing wrong and made up crap that any one could ever make up. What are you going to say next that the moon is flat or something so bazzare.

BillyKeyes11

@MayCaesar

Hello friend. How are you. I like it very much

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

See what I meen because no body said there were boms. Look at the video you posted because no body at all said that bombs went off

Are you talking about the video I posted a few weeks ago? The one where the very first sentence which comes out of the reporter's mouth is: 

"These ladies who are with me were in the WTC, in the first building, and escaped through the lobby, where they report they believe there was a bomb."

Listen Barnie, if you want to deny clear, objective facts, then there isn't really a great deal I can do about that.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

If we react to climate change and it is a false positive type I error, not too bad a mistake. On the other hand, a type II error false negative is much worse. That being said underestimating climate change is much worse than overestimating. I overestimated, the toxic ten underestimate.

Think patternicity, you hear a rustle in the bushes behind you:

I. You turn around, it is just the wind type one error false positive.

II. You ignore the rustle and it is a large hungry cat, false negative and much more costly mistake.

Social media acts like 24/7 spreaders of misinformation that helps a magnified minority spread disinformation. There is a major difference between two people talking and literally an audience of one other person.

Just look at the numbers from the Center for countering digital hate for toxic ten and disinformation dozen. Comparing my mistake to say Dr. Mercola or Breitbart is a false analogy. Another important fact, I admitted I was wrong, apologized, and thanked you for correcting me. Do you think Dr. Mercola or the owner of Breitbart would ever do that?

Type I and type II error refer to something entirely different. When making a series of decisions in the conditions of incomplete information, we have to accept that sometimes we will make errors and either overreact or underreact to something, and we can adjust our methodology based on the preferred tradeoff between the two. In this case, the information is complete, and you made a factual mistake by grossly misrepresenting the scientific findings and slandering the scientists who have put their work into obtaining them. It is not a type I or type II error, but a display of profound ignorance on the subject, poor reading comprehension ability and intellectual laziness.

When I hear a rustle in the bushes behind me, my body will react before my mind can process the information. When my survival is at stake, I will not stop and think about the best course of action. You are not going to die in the next few seconds if you do not accept some doomsayer's claims blindly, so you choosing to accept them is completely incomparable to my reaction in the scenario you are describing. You appear to defend some bizarre application of the Pascal's wager - are you willing to go all in on that? There is a non-zero probability that 20 years from now a giant meteorite will hit the Earth and kill us all, unless the government expends 99% of its tax income on a meteorite hit prevention program - time to go with it, no? You cannot think in these terms: you must perform a realistic assessment of various threats and distribute your resources accordingly, and in this case your assessment of the threats the climate change poses is completely off and so are your policy prescriptions.

Your apology means little to the people who, in the alternative timeline where your insane proposals were implemented, are now in jail because of your profound ignorance and arrogance. I do not know who Mercola is and I do not read Breitbart, so I have little knowledge about these people's tendency to apologize for making false claims - but I would guess that they do not want those people who disagree with them jailed. I could not care less how nice of a person you are at the front, when you are a Stalin when it comes to action. If every public person who did not agree with my claim that the Earth's radius is 10 km went to jail because of me, what would you think of me? Would your opinion change if I was a nice and smiley guy when outside the courtroom or the senate floor?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There has to be conquences for expelling major amonts of disinformation. Protecting the guilty is how a kleptocracy works.

@MayCaesar

Let's take the example of the Lancelot and Andrew Wakefield. Scientific journals have their flaws. I lost a lot of faith in science and scientific journals when I heard of Wakefield's fraud. Also the credulous media that amplified Wakefield's dishonesty. Not only that but the article was slow to be caught and retracted.

There should be consequences for Wakefield, his associates, the Lancelot, the media which amplified, celebrities including Jim Carrey and Jenny Mccarthy, the social media companies that allow this to spread further, and the gullible rank and file everyday Twitter users. With the highest penalty going towards Andrew Wakefield and the least towards the rank and file gullible everyday social media users.

I think Andrew Wakefield in this case deserves jail time. Prison term would serve as a warning to others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

There are many problems with science. Placebo effects, drawer effect, low quality studies making it into peer reviewed journals, and so on. Yet, to just give up on science and mainstream media leads us down a rabbit hole of anecdotal evidence and conspiratorial thinking. Just because Andrew Wakefield lied doesn't mean we should reject climate change.

Protecting the guilty is how a kleptocracy works. In the movies we tend to think of totalitarian states as chasing down the innocent, which does happen. Mostly though totalitarian states, the softer kleptocracy, and aliberal democracies protect the guilty.

Laws that protect quacks, charlatans, and grifters. Inaction on the rape kit backlog. Letting white supremacist police officers who murder Black people go free. This is the society we live in, a kleptocracy that protects the guilty.

 You reject my idea but leave no better alternative. Inaction is what big fossil fuel wants. Inaction is the ultimate goal of climate change denial. At the very least can we agree that laws that protect the guilty should be removed?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hi, welcome to debate island :)

@BillyKeyes11

Let me know if you have any questions?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Postponing climate change action deprives the next generation.

@just_sayin

Postponing climate change action deprives the next generation. If we leave extra co2 pollution unchecked, the next generation will have to pay the costs of cleaning it up.

I found a comment that got +14 votes on sciencebased medicine that explains this better than I can. I am pasting, because why reinvent the wheel?

"one of the primary concerns ... is that proposed fixes would have a huge economic cost without a clear benefit."

Those who mount this argument are indulging in a sort of creative accounting. Polluting the air or water defers clean-up costs to future generations, essentially moving those costs "off the balance sheet." Mitigation costs were pushed off the balance sheet for years in the timber and mining industries - and would be to this day if not for laws demanding reforesting and reclamation of strip mines.

It is disingenuous to ignore these very real costs, pushing them off on future generations. Yet many of those who squeal the loudest about the economic cost of cleaning up after themselves are the same voices who berate governments for running budget deficits which, if it isn't already obvious, shifts costs to future generations.

Running budget deficits to build infrastructure is an investment, paid in part by future taxpayers but also to the benefit of those future taxpayers. Polluting the atmosphere with cheap coal to keep the shopping mall toasty in the winter and chilly in the summer leaves only the mess for future generations to clean up.

There is nothing conservative about that. There is nothing honorable about that. It is stealing from someone else's future." Windriven

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/air-pollution-and-public-health/

A lot of the problem with libertarianism is we don't take into account the full costs.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

Let's take the example of the Lancelot and Andrew Wakefield. Scientific journals have their flaws. I lost a lot of faith in science and scientific journals when I heard of Wakefield's fraud. Also the credulous media that amplified Wakefield's dishonesty. Not only that but the article was slow to be caught and retracted.

There should be consequences for Wakefield, his associates, the Lancelot, the media which amplified, celebrities including Jim Carrey and Jenny Mccarthy, the social media companies that allow this to spread further, and the gullible rank and file everyday Twitter users. With the highest penalty going towards Andrew Wakefield and the least towards the rank and file gullible everyday social media users.

I think Andrew Wakefield in this case deserves jail time. Prison term would serve as a warning to others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

There are many problems with science. Placebo effects, drawer effect, low quality studies making it into peer reviewed journals, and so on. Yet, to just give up on science and mainstream media leads us down a rabbit hole of anecdotal evidence and conspiratorial thinking. Just because Andrew Wakefield lied doesn't mean we should reject climate change.

Protecting the guilty is how a kleptocracy works. In the movies we tend to think of totalitarian states as chasing down the innocent, which does happen. Mostly though totalitarian states, the softer kleptocracy, and aliberal democracies protect the guilty.

Laws that protect quacks, charlatans, and grifters. Inaction on the rape kit backlog. Letting white supremacist police officers who murder Black people go free. This is the society we live in, a kleptocracy that protects the guilty.

 You reject my idea but leave no better alternative. Inaction is what big fossil fuel wants. Inaction is the ultimate goal of climate change denial. At the very least can we agree that laws that protect the guilty should be removed?

First, the whole debate started with my claim that science does not support your claims. My claim did not include the presumption that science is flawless.

Second, whatever flaws scientific journals may have, misrepresenting their content is a serious logical error. You are free to argue that the particular paper features flawed methodology, suspect experimental data, et cetera - and all of these things are qualitatively different from claiming that the paper contains something that it does not.

Third, prison term as a "warning to others" is about the most totalitarian idea I have ever heard. It sets us back to the inquisition times when critics of the church were burned not because they were wrong about something, but because the church needed to intimidate its other critics - and the church was very open about it, talking about the "fear of the divine" as being one of the main moral drivers in a society.

Fourth, I am not giving up on science; you are. You said yourself that science is too hard to follow, so you opt in for mainstream media articles instead. I have demonstrated on a concrete example how the mainstream media can grossly misrepresent scientific findings, yet has your trust in them been shaken? Does not appear to be the case. You are the science denier, sir, and a willful one at that.

Lastly, I reject your idea because it is based on an objectively wrong reasoning, as I have already demonstrated. Better alternative? How about, for starters, learning about what science actually says on the subject? Once that has been done, we can proceed further. But when you claim that "5 million people die every year from climate change", then you are the guilty party in the room, and that you want to jail others for rejecting such claims makes you a scumbag who I would not be sorry to see jailed - not because I think that you should be jailed for your words (I do not think that anyone should be jailed for any words), but because for you to practice what you preach that is the exact place you need to be in.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Law and justice is about detererence.

@MayCaesar

The idea behind the law and justice is usually deterrence. We don't want a repeat offender. We don't want others following suit. When the punishment is too small or non-existent, individuals will commit crimes at a higher rate.

Take for example companies simply paying weak fines and continuing to pollute or violate safety. If a huge company has to pay an extra 100 million in fines, but makes 1 billion more gross money, that's a net gain of 900 million. This is insufficient deterrent.

"I do not think that anyone should be jailed for any words"  MayCaesar

Really? So if a person falsely shouts fire in a crowded space and people are trampled to death as a result, that person shouldn't go to jail? No jail for fraud, being a huckster, cheating the welfare system, all white collar crime more or less? Truly nasty white supremacists can spread hate, lies, conspiracies, all day long? Absolute free speech?

The inquisition was started by lies run amok. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories were a major part of the inquisition.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;Listen Barnie, if you want to deny clear, objective facts, then there isn't really a great deal I can do about that.

Yes it is a fact that the reporter said that "These ladies who are with me were in the WTC, in the first building, and escaped through the lobby, where they report they believe there was a bomb."

But waht are you trying to say or prove with that. They said they believe there was a bomb. That is nothing to do with what you said which was Multiple eye-witnesses reported bombs and explosions.

And even then what you said is so loose and ambiguous and what about all the multiple of people, there are none. Nobody at all said they saw a bomb go off and saying I believe there was a bomb says nothing except that by her words she is talking 3rd party. That is not an eye witness account and it is one repeated by the reporter. There is not one eye witness account except by Rodriguez and even he was cunning enough to say that what he saw was a man on fire. And why was he on fire because he was covered in aviation fuel. So the bomb just happen to have aviation fuel in it then did it.

And what about Rodriguez and Corbett like derrr Not to my knowledge and what about the over dubbed fire ball like silence. You are a total and deceiver and if you keep on listening to total lies and deceptions from gone in the head dufises guess what. Thats all you ever will be and thats exactly what you are.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

That is not even close to being true, for if the purpose of the law was to deter people from taking action, then it would not make sense to have differentiation in severity of consequences. You do not want people to steal from others, so why not chop every thief's hand off, as the Sharia law prescribes? That would surely be a strong deterrent, no?

No, the purpose of the law is justice: when someone commits a transgression against the social order, he is subjected to the punishment the degree of which in a certain sense matches the severity of the crime. A murder is a much bigger transgression than a minor theft, hence murderers get far harsher sentences than minor thieves. The civil law is about private parties compensating each other for offenses in their private affairs, and the criminal law is about the cases in which compensation is impossible and the transgression goes beyond the private affairs of the involved parties.

Fraud, yelling in a crowded space and such involve more than just words. And I will be honest: I prefer a nasty white supremacist spreading lies to someone who wants to persecute me for expressing my opinion and would rather see the latter in jail, getting his own treatment.

Well, you wanted to start your own inquisition based on the lies here. So what is the difference? They believed that "god" is going to seriously hurt humanity unless the sinners are turned to ash, and you believe that climate change is going to seriously hurt humanity unless the "deniers" are jailed, in both cases having no evidence in support of their beliefs and referring to sketchy sources contradicting verifiable facts.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
That is not even close to being true, for if the purpose of the law was to deter people from taking action, then it would not make sense to have differentiation in severity of consequences. You do not want people to steal from others, so why not chop every thief's hand off, as the Sharia law prescribes? That would surely be a strong deterrent, no?

The issue of whole truth here is the Sharia law places the right to take a hand possibly in the choices to be made of the person who has had something taken from them. As the possible taker of good is caught by the owner or the representation of law?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I don't exactly see Bloomberg, Webmd, and the others as sketchy sources.

@MayCaesar

Bloomberg and Webmd could be way better. Yet, they are left center and center bias respectively. This is way better than Dee linking to telegraph or dailymail.

The problem with relying solely on peer reviewed articles is it is a slow and difficult process. ScientificAmerican, Popsci, and popular mechanics magazines are not peer reviewed. Yet, are still so much better than a random person walking down the street.

The biggest advantage and disadvantage is the slow error checking. If we spend all our time on topic A getting all the facts correct. Then, we may be profoundly ignorant on topics B through Z.

Spending too much time error checking will lead to huge gaps in our knowledge. That's why I recommend a balance of very high quality peer review articles and high quality articles, plus a few average just so you have a clue what other people are thinking.

A person who only reads peer reviewed articles will be out of touch and ignorant. Think of all the information that is obsolete or testimonial we learned in the past that high quality sources will be enough to dislodge.

That being said comparing me using Bloomberg and WebmD to Sharia law is a false analogy. There is way way more errors in religious scriptures.

If the law was just about justice without deterrence that would be a poor system. Then, people would just commit crimes at a higher rate.

I don't see the relevant difference between fraud, falsely yelling fire in a crowded space, and disinformation. Can you elaborate on that part please?

I have plenty of evidence. If we don't deal with climate change eventually the catastrophic predictions will come true. Whether it be at 4 degrees, 6, or 8 is unknown. Yet soon or later catastrophe will happen unless someone chances the track on this railroad train.  Enjoy 230 million extra immigrants and refugees from rising sea levels.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z

Thank you for continuing the conversation.

Dee

@Dreamer

 Yet, they are left center and center bias respectively. This is way better than Dee linking to telegraph or dailymail.

You just cannot help lying can you? I quoted the Telegraph as one of hundreds of sources with regards Roald Dahls books being censored to stop cupcakes like you bawling their eyes out at words like "fat " being used  this story was carried by every credible news source which you knew but having no reponse instead decided to lie as usual 

So tell us seeing as you yet again refused to answer why are you so emotionally distressed at the word "fat" being used to refer to fat people?


.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

You are free to rely on anything you want, but if you rely on these sources, then you do not acquire scientific knowledge. And if you accept their claims over actual scientific findings (whether you are aware of what the latter are or not), then you reject science and choose politics instead. Hence my initial claim that your argument is not aligned with science is correct.

Combatting crimes is done through law enforcement and security, not through the system of justice. The system of justice only deals with the crimes already committed.

Compare yelling in a crowded theater, "Fire!!!", to whispering to your friend while laughing, "Fire". The word content is the same, yet in only one of these cases is an offense committed. I will reiterate my stance: no one should go to jail for their words. People can go to jail for the accompanying actions however, such as yelling suddenly, disturbing the peacs and creating panic.

How can you say that you have plenty of evidence when you have already been demonstrated to systematically make absurdly false claims? You yourself said that your primary sources of information are mainstream media of a particular political leaning. I have no reason to assume that you know much about the subject when you keep making elementary blunders. Many of your claims are non-sequitir even if they were true, showing that your mind is not engaged when you make them - for instance, your claim about the refugees following the rising sea levels is wrong on its face, for the sea levels are going to be rising gradually and people will have plenty of time to relocate peacefully and voluntarily, just as they have throughout the history.

This is what I run into every time I debate this subject with a non-scientist. Scientists, even if they do not agree with my conclusions, accept my arguments and are very careful about their claims. Ideologues, on the other hand, make demonstrably false claims, misrepresent scientific findings (sometimes deliberately, other times out of ignorance or poor logical skills), strawman my arguments - and, when all else fails, say something dismissive like, "Whether you are right or not, climate change is a big problem!" This is why I rarely engage in these discussions: it is impossible to have a meaningful debate with an ideological fanatic, because he is driven by emotions, not logic. I look at the scientific findings and see that the doomsday narrative is profoundpy false; he listens to a passionate politician and gets riled up and wants to save the world, and everyone who speaks the truth becomes an obstacle on his way to salvation.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: If you stick to just center bias sources you will be missing out in my opinion.

@MayCaesar

Hi, MayCaesar

"You yourself said that your primary sources of information are mainstream media of a particular political leaning." MayCaesar

Left center, and only one Bloomberg. I don't think it is a good idea to limit oneself and avoid all left-center sources. I will say I do run into problems with liberals that are more "woke" than me. They link to further left sources like rollingstones, huffingtonpost, etc.

I will try one more time to illustrate how I ran into problems with peer reviewed articles. I have fallen down a few rabbit holes. I would use a combination of the worst sources and peer reviewed articles.

A terrible source would link to ten peer reviewed articles or more. The problem is I lacked the scientific literacy to understand the drawer effect, placebo effects, nocebo effect, cherry picking, low quality studies, coincidence, too many end points, small sample size, or just plain straight lying, etc.

I recommend Richard Sloan's Bad Faith.

  For example, in the book intercessory prayer advocates were caught using a bunch of low quality studies until out of coincidence they hit a positive correlation. As for all the negative studies, just simply not submitting to a peer reviewed article in the drawer effect.

That being said unless you are highly scientifically literate, main stream media articles can often be better than peer reviewed articles. At the very least main stream media articles can help you find good peer reviewed articles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03564-y

According to the above article over 100,000 articles were published in 2020 on just the covid-19. We are being flooded with peer reviewed articles. It is impossible to read them all let alone process and compare. With those sheer numbers it is easy to cherry pick the articles that support the ideology you want.  That's why a person might be better off say sticking to the New York Times who won Pulitzer prize or National public radio NPR then sifting through millions of peer reviewed articles with no scientific literacy.

"This is why I rarely engage in these discussions: it is impossible to have a meaningful debate with an ideological fanatic, because he is driven by emotions, not logic. "  MayCaesar

When, I call the highly woke liberals out and say "whoa, that's fairly bias lets slow down and fact check" they get really mad and resort to abusive ad hominem attacks. I find some groups of woke liberals unbearable to be around. Therefore, I have empathy for people using bias sources and being ideological fanatics.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

That is why, my young friend, we spend 10+ years taking classes and learning how to read papers and do research, only to end up working in a very narrow field with little idea of what is going on outside that field: science is hard. Similarly, if you want to become a dentist, you have to put in 10+ years of studies, then practice for another N years under supervision of a senior dentist: you do not just read a bunch of articles in Popular Medicine and go fix someone's teeth.

As was already demonstrated, your approach leads you to making claims that can be proven wrong with one mouse click. In a way, your knowledge is inferior to that of someone who does not read anything at all, for at least they do not acquire distorted knowledge. If you have to have a general idea about the current state of affairs in a scientific field, you only have a couple of options: learn to read the relevant scientific literature (the review papers are good enough, relatively accessible, and you do not need to read tjousands of them to get somewhere), or find a source that has a proven record of accurately representing scientific findings. The former approach you have rejected, and the latter you have provably failed to implement, so where does this leave us?

Finally, you do not need to know a lot to avoid the elementary blunders. Your mistake about the "5 million" was correctable by anyone who can read and is willing to, at least, click on the link given as supportive evidence of that outstanding claim. You certainly can do that. Do you want to? You better if finding out the truth is what you are really after, and I am skeptical that that is the case.

Lastly, I do not have a problem with a bias; what I care about is logic. And logic is best tested against the reality, which requires one to leave his shack and explore the mysterious world outside. Sitting in an echo-chamber and listening to those who think like you is not going to offer that valuable experience, and you will engage in collective madness - leading you, among other things, to seriously propose punishing those who do not share your beliefs on climate change. Tribes have that tendency to descend into tribalistic tyranny.

Dee

@Dreamer

You mocked my source for the Roald Dahl story so by  implication you're saying   it was false  so can you verify how you proved the story false? 

You keep running from questions when cornered whys that?

So tell me why Roald  Dahls book that mentions a fat child has you in floods of tears.?

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

Your argument regarding the science here is a bit inconsistent. At one point you are saying that you are relying on the science, and then the next moment you are saying the science is unreliable.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I will try to clarify my stance. My problem is not with science so much as the weakness of peer review journals.

@ZeusAres42

There are individuals who will deliberately or at the very least be negligent in regards to peer reviewed articles. Promoters of pseudo-science love to link to poor quality peer reviewed articles. Given enough end points and a small sample size it is very easy through sheer coincidence to find a correlation.  

Simultaneously I respect the scientific consensus on climate change. That climate change is already here, and eventually the more catastrophic scenarios will play out. Despite, there being some ambiguity in the science of exactly when and how severe, we need to act.

ZeusAres42

Dreamer said:

@ZeusAres42

There are individuals who will deliberately or at the very least be negligent in regards to peer reviewed articles. Promoters of pseudo-science love to link to poor quality peer reviewed articles. Given enough end points and a small sample size it is very easy through sheer coincidence to find a correlation.  

Simultaneously I respect the scientific consensus on climate change. That climate change is already here, and eventually the more catastrophic scenarios will play out. Despite, there being some ambiguity in the science of exactly when and how severe, we need to act.

Maybe I am a little outdated but the last time I checked, I knew for a fact that Peer Review in the UK is a very stringent process, and the same is in the USA, at least according to my American scientist friends. In legitimate DBs papers can't even get published unless they are critically reviewed by several peers.

That being said, ofc, anyone can write and publish a journal but very few actually get through legitimate databases. That is not to say it doesn't happen but it is rare when it does happen. You are right about the like of Andrew Wakefield but that was about 20/30 years ago. Wakefield also got found out and de-accredited, and I know 100 percent that every single medical professional in the medical community will verify this, and be able to provide examples of his fraudulent behavior.

Still, there do exist anti-vaxxers and they will continue to exist for some time. But the way I see it is that these anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers, etc are becoming a minority, and will be no more than just white noise in the background, pretty much like those flat earthers in the future. Positive changes are happening, but the media doesn't like good news; that doesn't make for good stories!

@Dreamer

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Let's wrap this up. You still haven't admitted to your false claims. The perfect is the enemy of good.

@MayCaesar

"

Dreamer said:

Five million people are dying a year from climate change. We are in the middle of the sixth great extinction. The oceans are acidifying.

Too much tolerance and freedom becomes callousness and indifference. Jail climate change denier leaders, the merchants of doubt.

Jailing people for expressing their opinion based on a proposal by a comedian... That is a pretty low dip, my friend. Especially in combination with these outstanding claims that, of course, do not have any support in the scientific literature and are only promoted by unqualified activists." MayCaesar

Here's how the conversation got started. Then, I posted three links backing up all three of my claims. The other two claims have been ignored, about the middle of a sixth great extinction and the oceans are acidifying.

I've apologized over and over for the mistake about the five million people dying from climate change.  I even updated my stance and thanked you for correcting me. Yes, the independent which was my original source was a poor choice. Nevertheless, you bring up my mistake over and over while ignoring your own. There is scientific literature backing up the claims of acidification and mass extinction.

The oceans are acidifying and we are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction.

As for relying solely on peer reviewed articles. First there is the balance between quality and speed. I think reading the occasional main stream article is good. Second, minoritized communities don't always get represented in peer reviewed journals. For a while homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Scientific institutions are still institutions that tend to be dominated by white cis-gender straight able body men.

Third, lack of action. A person can always find a way to nitpick and doubt. It is often better to act on incomplete knowledge than to wait until more information is acquired. So, if I acquire 50 pieces of data on why we should act on climate change, and 45 end up being true and five being false. It is still probably best to act on climate change. 100% accuracy is overkill, the perfect is the enemy of good.

• Glaciers are shrinking.
• Polar bears are drowning.
• Mosquitoes are reaching areas they couldn't before.
• Hurricanes are fewer but more intense.
• Heat waves are occurring more often.
  

John_C_87

@Dreamer

Five million people are dying a year from climate change. We are in the middle of the sixth great extinction. The oceans are acidifying.

The ocean Ph is an outcome made form changing the process of natural protein skimming.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

Here's how the conversation got started. Then, I posted three links backing up all three of my claims. The other two claims have been ignored, about the middle of a sixth great extinction and the oceans are acidifying.

I've apologized over and over for the mistake about the five million people dying from climate change.  I even updated my stance and thanked you for correcting me. Yes, the independent which was my original source was a poor choice. Nevertheless, you bring up my mistake over and over while ignoring your own. There is scientific literature backing up the claims of acidification and mass extinction.

The oceans are acidifying and we are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction.

As for relying solely on peer reviewed articles. First there is the balance between quality and speed. I think reading the occasional main stream article is good. Second, minoritized communities don't always get represented in peer reviewed journals. For a while homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Scientific institutions are still institutions that tend to be dominated by white cis-gender straight able body men.

Third, lack of action. A person can always find a way to nitpick and doubt. It is often better to act on incomplete knowledge than to wait until more information is acquired. So, if I acquire 50 pieces of data on why we should act on climate change, and 45 end up being true and five being false. It is still probably best to act on climate change. 100% accuracy is overkill, the perfect is the enemy of good.

• Glaciers are shrinking.
• Polar bears are drowning.
• Mosquitoes are reaching areas they couldn't before.
• Hurricanes are fewer but more intense.
• Heat waves are occurring more often.

You do not seem to follow my argument. It is not about one of your claims happening to be false: it is about it being false in a very particular way as part of your general (which you yourself described in a low of detail) approach to acquiring knowledge. I have no reason to take any of your claims seriously when you make such massive blunders and then justify them in such a way. Me ignoring your other two claims is not a mistake, but a deliberate behavior. In addition to me being able to track them to their source and likely invalidate them immediately as well as I did with the first one, they are not even concrete: the term "great extinction" is not very well defined and I cannot agree or disagree with such a vague statement, and "The oceans are acidifying" does not say anything about the degree to which the process takes places and does not support your argument.

You yourself earlier said that you do not follow scientific literature and prefer secondary sources. So how can you again, after everything that happened since then, claim with a straight face once again that you know what the scientific literature backs up? You know, in the Soviet Union there was a popular joke roughly translated as "I have not read that book, but I dislike it", referring to the Party-initiated hate campaigns prompting people to hate on a book's author, often without knowing who that author is.

I am not saying that reading mainstream articles is somehow wrong: you are free to read whatever you want. What is wrong is reading them and taking them for what they are not: a proper source to draw scientific knowledge from. As, again, has been demonstrated in this very thread.

And what is it about minoritized communities? How much do you know about academia? If anything, one of the biggest problems in academia right now is rapid replacement of the merit-based approach with the identity-based approach: if you are, say, transgender and make your identity open, then the barrier of entry into many journals is going to be instantly dramatically lowered for you, as the journals compete for the "submissions from underrepresented groups" and get special grants for that - I will not even mention the endless fellowships and academic jobs that you can get simply by doing a passable work and emphasizing your group belonging.
In addition, countless fields are dominated by very different groups from what you describe: mathematics in many Western and, of course, Asian countries, for instance, is currently dominated by Asian immigrants and their descendants, while in computer science Chinese and Indians are significantly outperforming anyone else and form the bulk of many CS departments' faculties.
I think that you are getting these ideas from the same sources as you are getting your information on climate change, as they appear as close to reality as that.

"Nitpick and doubt" is quite a characterization of criticism of an insane number. I am sorry, but your "incomplete knowledge" is actually a heap of massive errors. If you present 50 pieces of data purported to demonstrate the severity of climate change and the first 5 pieces of it that I examine turn to be ridiculously wrong, then what reason do I have to even look at the other 45? You know, in science if you make one massive mistake in your paper, then it will be rejected, or, if the mistake somehow was overlooked for the time being, retracted posthumously. But here you are okay with making multiple mistakes like this and think that after this people still should listen to you and implement your policy proposals?
No one expects 100% accuracy from you. What people expect is a reasoned argument based on solid evidence, and you have failed to provide either, sorry to say. Everyone makes mistakes; I probably made, at least, 10 mistakes in my research today. But there is a difference between following a rigorous methodology imperfectly and sometimes slipping up, and following a nonsense methodology and occasionally getting the natural twenty and getting a random fact right. That you do not see how your massive blunder invalidates your entire argument is more revealing still; it would be like me accusing someone of murder, finding in the court that the person instead merely said the F-word at a family dinner, and saying, "But still, the guy should go to jail! You are getting tangled up in the irrelevant details!" 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Impact factor. There are for profit "peer reviewed" journals. Just like pay to publish books.

@ZeusAres42

Yes, the majority of what you are saying is true. Impact factor is the key to determining high versus low quality journals. A great example is the AAAS that's science magazine and New England Journal of medicine are prestigious and you can believe what you hear from them.

Taking a random journal from a country and journal you never heard of may be a pay to publish scam.

I fell down a few rabbit holes with both pay to publish books and peer reviewed journals. In grade school peer reviewed articles were put on a pedestal.  That's how I fell for down the rabbit hole, putting too much trust in peer reviewed articles and books. Not realizing they were pay to publish.

That's why I recommend not relying too much on peer reviewed articles unless your scientific literacy is high. Wikipedia is better than the worst peer reviewed journals.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: No idea what protein skimming is.

@John_C_87

The ocean is increasing in acidification due to excess Co2 from industrial activity.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-008-0381-8

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I forgot to add books. If you rely only on peer reviewed articles only you will lose out on books.

@MayCaesar

Hi MayCaesar,

Many of the best literature out there on critical thinking is in book format. For example the book I mentioned earlier by Richard Sloan, Science Goes Viral, Quack Quack the Threat of Psuedoscience, Fad, Fakes, and Hoaxes by Tomasz Witkowski, and many more.

There is also blogs of scientists. Sciencebased medicine, skepticalscience, quackwatch, and crankyuncle.

Let me give an example of how peer reviewed articles can go horribly wrong. There is a Dr. Michael Greger who pulls all the cheap tricks to promote vegan propaganda. He links to peer reviewed articles a lot.

"Overall, we rate NutritionFacts.org a moderate Pseudoscience source due to exaggerated health claims."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nutritionfacts-org/

As for the sixth mass extinction the extinction rate is much higher than the background extinction rate. The acidifying enough to devastate coral reefs.

I will need a break soon, so lets wrap up this conversation. Thank you for this long and difficult conversation.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I don't read questionable sources.

@Dee

Linking to a questionable source is polluting the Internet.

Dee

@Dreamer

Yet the story was carried and featured d by many TV stations and news outlets worldwide,you're using the very same tactics as a flat earther.

You bury your head in the sand everytime you're proved wrong ,so tell us please are all the media sources lying regards Roald Dahl?

That's what you're saying so go on prove it.

Regards questionable sources do you want to talk about your ridiculous 5 million claim?

My 3 questions on climate  you're still running from and your questionable source regards more blacks dying fron Covid was yet anther lie like your 5 million claim,finally do you still stick by your claim that blacks are infantile by nature?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Your putting words in my mouth.

@Dee

Just responding to MayCaesar would take up more time than I have available. Scientific America is not a questionable source nor is medicalnewstoday .

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/racial-inequalities-in-covid-19-the-impact-on-black-communities#What-explains-the-disparities?-And-how-does-racism-play-into-it?-

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-racism-not-race-is-a-risk-factor-for-dying-of-covid-191/

Both are high factual reporting and pro-science.

Dee

@Dreamer ;

Argument Topic: Your putting words in my mouth.

Argument topic: Dreamer still thinks the Roald Dahl story is false but he she cannot say or prove why

Just responding to MayCaesar would take up more time than I have available. Scientific America is not a questionable source nor is medicalnewstoday .

Translation : Dreamer cannot answer 3 simple questions on climate change so pretends he/ she  hasn't the time.

Did Scientifuc America back up your 5 million claim?  The latest research has more whites dying than blacks from covid  denying the Science seems to beyour thing

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/racial-inequalities-in-covid-19-the-impact-on-black-communities#What-explains-the-disparities?-And-how-does-racism-play-into-it?-

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-racism-not-race-is-a-risk-factor-for-dying-of-covid-191/

Both are high factual reporting and pro-science.


Bwahahahahahaha Medical news today has a one star rating and professionals rate it as garbage ......But as usual you don't care do you?

I don't read trash posts from a garbage site , stop polluting the Internet with your Science denialism please.

9 Feb 2023

Too many factual errors

Many of their articles on psychedelic drugs are littered with factual errors. As an expert in the field, it was extremely disappointing to see things as simple as doses being wildly inaccurate.

In particular their n,DMT article which from a brief scan I've already found 5+ factual errors

Date of experience: 09 February 2023

---

UsefulShare

VV

Vicky Vaporub8 reviewsGB

---

24 Jan 2023

Biased and partial in the service of advertising industry and companies

it's being acquired by an American private company Healthline Media and the content many times goes against more credible sources, like UK's NHS or British Heart Foundation. Its sister site Healthline is partial, and pleases the advertising and whatever products they "sell" under the auspices of "Health to the general public".

Date of experience: 24 January 2023

---

UsefulShare

Samuel Downie1 reviewUS

---

22 Jan 2023

Garbage website, don’t waste your time

Absolute bogus. I’m currently taking a 5 day course of prednisone and I am ridiculously constipated. Medical News Today says “it is highly unlikely you will experience constipation while on Prednisone”. The website crashed my phone as soon as I opened it. I think the only reason this website gets any traffic at all is due to the domain name sounding official. I wouldn’t trust this website to spell its own name!

Date of experience: 21 January 2023

---

UsefulShare

CH

But you're doing your latest Science denial dance as the latest figures dispute your trash post.

Why are you suddenly concerned about race when your favourite woke author compares the intelligence of blacks to that of infants?

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

Impact factor is the key to determining high versus low quality journals.

What makes you specifically qualified to differentiate between a "high quality" and "low quality" journal?

Why can a high quality paper not be published in a "low quality" journal? What prevents that from happening? 

When Einstein first broke into science his theories contradicted established mainstream thought, and no "high quality" scientific journal would have touched his papers with a barge pole. 

I don't see a problem with making appeals to authority in the context of trying to make a point, but in your case it appears to be all you do. You always follow the same formula: X says Y, therefore Y is true. Frequently you misinterpret what X has actually said, or ignore that there are people equally qualified as X who disagree.