ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 08/22/2014 07:53 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
Study: A Child´s Drawing Can Be a Predicator of Later Intelligence
Scientists Develop Camouflage Sheet Inspired by Octopus
Daughters More Likely to Care for Aging Parents
Chile Says UFOs Pose No Threat
Purity Test Detects Filler Ingredients in Coffee
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
08/22/2014 05:41 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Antibiotic Taken by Millions Associated With Increased Heart Death Risk'
08/22/2014 05:40 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Bank of America Agrees to Nearly $17B Settlement'
08/22/2014 05:40 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Man Charged With Murder of Pregnant California Woman Had Researched Body Disposal'
08/22/2014 05:39 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Twitter to Remove Images of Deceased Upon Family Request'
08/22/2014 05:38 AM
Lurker receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Couples With Big Weddings More Likely to Have a Happy Marriage'
08/22/2014 05:38 AM
estrella242 receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Couples With Big Weddings More Likely to Have a Happy Marriage'
08/22/2014 05:37 AM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'SeaWorld Produces World´s First Test-Tube Penguin'
08/22/2014 05:36 AM
coronado receives 10 Points for good Assessment of 'Robber Arrested After Showering, Shaving in Front of 94-Year-Old Victim'
08/22/2014 05:34 AM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Man Calls 911 to Complain That Stripper Won´t Have Sex With Him'
08/21/2014 04:25 PM
estrella242 receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Antibiotic Taken by Millions Associated With Increased Heart Death Risk'
  2.202 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/17/2011 10:11 PM ID: 89775 Permalink   

Worldwide Mini Ice Age May Begin Within a Decade

 

Scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory have announced that the Earth could be headed directly into another mini Ice Age.

Three separate analyses of the Sun show that a period of reduced solar activity may begin within 10 years. Scientists say this reduction of solar activity can have a big and lasting effect on Earth´s temperatures.

NASA research shows the previous mini Ice Age corresponded with reduced solar activity. NASA reported that the last time this happened, snow fields remained year-round at lower latitudes; while rivers which normally remain ice-free, froze over.

 
  Source: www.theregister.co.uk  
    WebReporter: Questioning_Answers Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  47 Comments
  
  Hahahahaha!  
 
The Goremons are going to have a fit!
This doesn´t fit into their Global Warming narrative at all!

No... wait... *everything* is to be blamed on Global Warming!
 
  by: carnold     06/17/2011 10:22 PM     
  It was hard to fit everything in  
 
I really wanted to include this quote from the article:

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

---------

The article says that reduced solar activity also means that astronauts likely will not have to worry as much about protecting themselves from solar radiation. So mars missions can be cheaper and a lot safer. Just the same, I suspect our satellites and power grids might be more protected because of this.

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/17/2011 10:26 PM     
  n/t  
 
I prefer cold weather, especially since I live in da dirty south. Bring it.

P.S. - Al Gore heheheheheheheheheheuhuhuhheheueheueheueheueheheheheh super serial.
 
  by: Garbasche   06/17/2011 10:44 PM     
  Of course ...  
 
it´s still unknown whether the Maunder Minimum (extremely low sunspot activity in the Middle Ages) caused the Little Ice Age or just coincided with it. In fact, the LIA was already under way when the MM began, though it did get colder during the MM.

However, I sincerely hope that these scientist´s predictions are accurate. While I find it reasonable to accept the consensus of 97 percent of climate scientists (i.e., that global warming is happening and that we´re the cause), I´m not like the Christians who really hope the world ends soon.

Looking around online, I did find a peer-reviewed article from last year that predicts a solar minimum would cool the Earth by at most less than one degree Fahrenheit or 0.3 degrees Celsius:

"The current exceptionally long minimum of solar activity has led to the suggestion that the Sun might experience a new grand minimum in the next decades, a prolonged period of low activity similar to the Maunder minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than ?0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century."

http://www.agu.org/...

We will see what happens, certainly. Meanwhile, I´m happy to see several SN users embracing the use of the scientific method to learn about the universe. I guess all it took was them hearing something from the scientific community that they actually *wanted* to hear ...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/17/2011 11:37 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
Who are you even talking to?

If you´re talking to me, then you probably didn´t notice that I was posting things from the news story.



If you want to talk about warming, or more accurately the lack of it, then I´m game.

At one time I used to believe all scientific consensuses, including the global warming one, but later found that just wasn´t scientific. Believing scientific consensuses blindly is the very definition of an argument from authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Effective use of the scientific method means you need to question answers through testing. I wanted to believe the global warming fad years ago and fought in favor of it. However, later I realized the current science can´t even explain why there´s a lack of warming.


"The fact is that we can´t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can´t."

- Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at the US Government´s National Center for Atmospheric Research, IPCC Lead Author on Climate Change Science

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...


Until these scientists can explain exactly why they see a lack of warming, what would lead any rational person to believe they can suddenly and accurately predict something 100 years into the future?



"The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation."

- Doctor Mirabilis (AKA one of Europe´s earliest proponents of the scientific method)
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/18/2011 02:42 AM     
  Global Climate Change (Warming)  
 
that is caused by carbons in the atmosphere is a completely different subject than reduced solar activity.

You have to believe in science to understand the difference.
 
  by: Jim8   06/18/2011 06:31 AM     
  Pay Attention  
 
you guys are a day late and a dollar short

watch this (3:32 second video) pay close attention at 2:01 thur 3:32 http://www.trutv.com/...

then watch this 3 minute video http://www.trutv.com/...



 
  by: key2000     06/18/2011 06:57 AM     
  @QA  
 
I was commenting on the story. We used to do that all the time around here instead of battling one another.

I´m sure you did used to accept the theory of global warming, just like I´m fairly certain you used to believe in abortion rights. Then you decided you were going to pattern your life after Ron Paul and just believe whatever he believes. Must make things much easier for you.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/18/2011 08:16 AM     
  also @qa  
   
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/18/2011 08:18 AM     
  Hahahaha  
 
Oh Ben

Why do you not like smart people? What do you have against them? Do you not understand the logic behind it? You know, the types that understand economics/history

Everybody but Ben should watch this, I dont want his fantasy bubble world to pop

http://www.youtube.com/...

The end is prophetic, but logical reason.


PS Ben, you dont want to know what Paul/Austrians are saying nowadays.



[ edited by t-bagger ]
 
  by: t-bagger   06/18/2011 09:30 AM     
  @t-bagger  
 
That´s great, coming from the biggest wannabe on this site. You chime in on things you don´t know anything about. And you only believe things that reinforce your existing worldview.

I´m willing to accept that this mini Ice Age may happen. I´d like to reserve my judgement until more work is done on it. You, on the other hand, dismiss the 97 percent of climate scientists who say global warming is real and we´re the cause as soon as somebody else tells you something more pleasing to your sensibilities.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/18/2011 07:53 PM     
  @Ben  
 
"Then you decided you were going to pattern your life after Ron Paul and just believe whatever he believes."

Stop assuming, please. You are coming off as arrogant.
 
  by: vhan     06/18/2011 10:29 PM     
  @vhan  
 
It´s not an assumption; it´s true. If it wasn´t, he would have disputed it. QA decided at some point that RP has all the answers and that it´s no longer necessary to think for himself.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/18/2011 11:05 PM     
  Ron Paul, Jedi Master  
   
  by: Lurker     06/18/2011 11:20 PM     
  rofl  
 
More assumptions, & pre assumptions to back you your claims before you even made them. How fool hardy.

Let me break it down, you say it isn´t assumption because after you said it he didn´t say other wise, so it must be true. You can´t prove assumptions with assumptions.
 
  by: vhan     06/18/2011 11:20 PM     
  @vhan  
 
QA can speak for himself, can´t he? Why do you have to chime in? All for one and one for all, is that the way it is in the Cult of Paul? You people give me the willies.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/18/2011 11:31 PM     
  I´m looking forward to it.  
 
It hasn´t been cool enough to break out the sweaters for at least 4 years now. And winter time in the tropics makes for great biking weather.
 
  by: Jaded Fox     06/18/2011 11:42 PM     
  rofl again  
 
More assumptions? You just can´t stop can you? I actually come to defend everyone, you, lurker, etc. I only do so to bring balance. You obviously can´t handle it. You keep twisting other peoples positions & say they are facts, but you can´t prove any of it. Why are you so adamant on being ignorant to it? I keep bringing this up about you, but you never admit & you continue to insult.

How can anyone take you serious when you are act with such arrogance?
 
  by: vhan     06/19/2011 12:50 AM     
  @ Ben_Reilly  
 
I was talking about this:

"Meanwhile, I´m happy to see several SN users embracing the use of the scientific method to learn about the universe. I guess all it took was them hearing something from the scientific community that they actually *wanted* to hear ..."

Who were you talking to/about?



----------------------------------------



I do accept global warming theory as a likelihood. I mentioned this before a few weeks ago. What I said is that I used to fight for it; as I used to be convinced. Not anymore, as they haven´t proved anything to me yet but their ignorance.

"Missing" heat may affect future climate change
http://www2.ucar.edu/...


Apparent scientific consensus has historically been wrong about a myriad of things. Many times it has been the unaccepted theory which proves to be true.

After all, all a scientific consensus ever is, is a bunch of scientists which have decided to stop thinking about the same issue.


I also don´t believe or disbelieve in abortion rights. All I´ve said is that I can see both sides of the argument. Both sides of the issue are logically sound depending on your perspective.


I also don´t pattern my life after Ron Paul. What I now recognize is the fact that his mindset is much more logically and economically sound than the liberal socialist mindset I had before. It takes a scientific mindset, and hard work, to have such huge changes in beliefs. So many others just do the easy thing and go on believing what they used to believe.

 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/19/2011 01:18 AM     
  @Ben  
 
lol, thanks for telling me my view on climate scientists, concidering i didnt express one.

Its amazing how you can resort to name-calling when I showed you historical proof of following sound economics. And also, LOL, reinforcing my existing worldview was the same as yours until i began asking questions and studying.

What is wrong with you?

[ edited by T-bagger ]
 
  by: T-bagger   06/19/2011 02:17 AM     
  @QA, t-bagger  
 
Or Mike and Ike, as I think of you ...

@QA:

"Apparent scientific consensus has historically been wrong about a myriad of things. Many times it has been the unaccepted theory which proves to be true."

It´s been right far more often than it´s been wrong. You´re citing exceptions as though they prove something.

"After all, all a scientific consensus ever is, is a bunch of scientists which have decided to stop thinking about the same issue."

No, scientific consensus is when scientists conduct research, prepare papers, critique one anothers´ findings and are gradually convinced of the acceptability of a theory. This process happened with global warming in the 1970s; you can read all about the process online.

It´s not a bunch of idiots saying "oh that sounds good, I´ll believe it." The nature of science is to be skeptical until something is proven convincingly. And 97 percent of climate scientists have been convinced. http://tigger.uic.edu/...

"I also don´t believe or disbelieve in abortion rights. All I´ve said is that I can see both sides of the argument. Both sides of the issue are logically sound depending on your perspective."

Not really. The only way you can say that an undifferentiated lump of stem cells is a human being is if you attribute something you consider human beings to have to it. It doesn´t have a brain, heart, lungs, a face, arms, legs, hands, feet, a nervous system, its own blood; it doesn´t have bones; it doesn´t have eyes, ears, a mouth or a nose; it is little more than a fertilized egg cell. If you leave it alone, with a little luck it will develop into a human being, but there´s nothing human about it unless you say it has a soul, which is the ultimate in illogical.

"I also don´t pattern my life after Ron Paul. What I now recognize is the fact that his mindset is much more logically and economically sound than the liberal socialist mindset I had before. It takes a scientific mindset, and hard work, to have such huge changes in beliefs. So many others just do the easy thing and go on believing what they used to believe."

I am open to new evidence and am a proud member of the reality-based community. You do appear to have swallowed whole every major point of Ron Paul´s philosophy, all because you once tried to sell a house, from what you´ve said. I´d be interested in hearing whether you disagree with Ron Paul on anything. I´d be frankly astounded if you do.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/19/2011 04:24 AM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
"Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary."
- Albert Einstein

I agree with Einstein. In science, just as important are the 3% who don´t agree.

If we have a 97% consensus of scientists who can´t even ascertain what is, can´t even explain the lack of warming, what makes you think they can suddenly ascertain what should be?


Any scientific conclusion, is the exact point at which the scientist has decided to stop thinking.


Both sides of the abortion issue are logically sound depending on your perspective. You obviously only have 1 perspective on the issue.

I differ from Ron Paul in several ways. I don´t necessarily hold his abortion views. I want more government than Ron Paul in different areas. He wants to get rid of just about every agency, I mainly want most of them reduced to be about 5%-10% of what they are now. Most of what he says is much too logical to disagree with though.



If you´re a ´member of the reality based community´ then do you recognize the link that tbagger gave you?

http://www.youtube.com/...

How do you explain such accuracy?
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/19/2011 05:37 AM     
  @QA  
 
"Any scientific conclusion, is the exact point at which the scientist has decided to stop thinking."

Hardly. Scientists do not conclude and then walk away. We continue to examine and process new data to see how it fits with these theories.
A consensus does not mean that the theory is accepted as flawless. It only means that the theory is sound based on current experimental or observed evidence.


"I agree with Einstein. In science, just as important are the 3% who don´t agree."

That quotes doesn´t meant what you think it means. Einstein was commenting on the nature of science and religion. In that paper, he discusses how science is concerned with what is, based on evidence, whereas religion is concerned with human thought and actions and what people want to believe the world is like. Religion is the "outside its domain". Not dissenters.


If we have a 97% consensus of scientists who can´t even ascertain what is, can´t even explain the lack of warming, what makes you think they can suddenly ascertain what should be?

Being unable to explain an aspect of a theory, or particular evidence that arises does not mean the theory is junk and should be tossed. It merely means the theory needs to be reevaluated.
Newton´s Laws of Motion stood firm for about 250 years. But then subatomic research showed us that Newton´s Laws didn´t work in all aspects. Did we toss them out? No. Einstein modified Newton´s equations for dealing with the quantum world. But the original equations are still fine for macroscopic processes.

Of course climatologists are concerned about aspects of their theories not lining up. But that´s what science is. Modifying and reworking ideas to include new evidence.

You´d be very hard pressed to find an accepted scientific theory that was completely tossed out with no aspect of it being retained.
 
  by: zyste     06/19/2011 07:07 AM     
  @zyste  
 
"Scientists do not conclude and then walk away. We continue to examine and process new data to see how it fits with these theories."

* I agree entirely. You interpreted what I said to mean something ridiculously stupid. I almost wrote ´at least they usually continue to incoporate evidence´, but I thought it would have been obvious.

This is what I said: A conclusion is where you stopped thinking. It does not matter who you are, nor does it matter how you arrived, nor does it matter what you do after. The conclusion simply is the place where you stopped thinking. That is what the "exact point" described.

-----------------------------------

"A consensus does not mean that the theory is accepted as flawless. It only means that the theory is sound based on current experimental or observed evidence."

* That is exactly true, from the consensus viewpoint that is. AKA "the theory is sound [according to the consensus] based on [their] current experimental or observed evidence."

From the viewpoint of those who do not agree with the consensus, it also means "that [the dissenter´s] theory is sound based on [their] current experimental or observed evidence."

New discoveries can change the entire dynamic of either group.

-----------------------------------

"Einstein was commenting on the nature of science and religion. In that paper, he discusses how science is concerned with what is, based on evidence, whereas religion is concerned with human thought and actions and what people want to believe the world is like. Religion is the "outside its domain". Not dissenters."

* That is true in a sense, but also remember that Einstein said that "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" and that "Imagination is more important than knowledge"

We not only need faith in science, we also need the (more important) imagination to break free of what we think we know now, as it helps scientific evolution. Otherwise scientific discovery would not be possible.

So the 3 percent of scientists who interpret the data differently can be just as, or more important than the other 97 percent are.

All scientific discovery begins with a single person. Regardless if a billion other scientists agree or not, the only thing that matters is the truth, not the consensus.

------------------------

"Being unable to explain an aspect of a theory, or particular evidence that arises does not mean the theory is junk and should be tossed. It merely means the theory needs to be reevaluated."

* Exactly.

------------------------

"Of course climatologists are concerned about aspects of their theories not lining up. But that´s what science is. Modifying and reworking ideas to include new evidence."

* Exactly.

------------------------

You´d be very hard pressed to find an accepted scientific theory that was completely tossed out with no aspect of it being retained.

* Exactly. What seems to happen more often is that aspects of different theories, which at one time seemed opposed, join together to form a bigger picture.

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/19/2011 09:39 AM     
  @QA  
   
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/19/2011 04:49 PM     
  @QA  
 
"I agree entirely. You interpreted what I said to mean something ridiculously stupid. I almost wrote ´at least they usually continue to incoporate evidence´, but I thought it would have been obvious."

Why should it be obvious? I merely responded to your statement, treating it as the most logical interpretation. If you tell someone "you´ve stopped thinking about X" the most logical extension of that is that they have moved on and consider X a dead topic.

And please don´t start into the "you don´t know what I was thinking" bit, because you are writing persuasively here, and the job of a persuasive writer is to convince people and therefore to make statements that are going to be most easily interpreted as your intent.


"This is what I said: A conclusion is where you stopped thinking. It does not matter who you are, nor does it matter how you arrived, nor does it matter what you do after. The conclusion simply is the place where you stopped thinking. That is what the "exact point" described."

That´s not what you said. You said,

"Any scientific conclusion, is the exact point at which the scientist has decided to stop thinking."

That is all you said.

Thinking involves rational and objective interpretation. To say "stop thinking" implies the scientist no longer seeks a rational answer based on new evidence and has decided to remain fixed in his/her original conclusion. This interpretation is incredibly far from what a scientific conclusion is.
 
  by: zyste     06/19/2011 06:18 PM     
  ^Yes  
 
That´s right. Climate scientists were completely unaware of solar cycles and took no consideration of them in their models up until now. Scientist are so shook up by the GOP arm chair experts that I hear that paleontologists now consider the Flintstones as not a cartoon but a real life historical documentary.

I´m one arm chair expert that needs no decade´s worth of formal education to debunk the ivory tower academics that are working with the one world government lead by Al Gore who are out to destroy america by picking on those poor harmless "clean" oil and "clean" coal companies.

Drill baby Drill!


[ edited by ukcn001XYZ ]
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   06/19/2011 07:21 PM     
  Check this out:  
 
Go check out:
"http://www.youtube.com/...
is about the book "Dark Missions" and has 9 parts in all.
Kinda Conspiracy theory stuff but he mentions that NASA is worried because the Earth´s Magnetic "Shields" are down and there is a huge hole that will allow extra solar flares to get through to the Earth. IDK, but I think the next generation is screwed. LOL
 
  by: risqman2006   06/19/2011 07:30 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
I have already seen it. Remember, I used to argue in favor of the global warming hysteria. Now I keep any open mind to all possibilities.

http://newsbusters.org/...

There are suspicious funds which come from both sides. I have even seen a polling of scientists who have said many scientists have fudged data to keep their funding.



It seems you may not have seen this, so I´ll post it again:

If you´re a ´member of the reality based community´ then do you recognize the link that tbagger gave you?

http://www.youtube.com/...

How do you explain such accuracy?


 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/20/2011 07:27 PM     
  @zyste  
 

It seems that you´re more concerned with how you interpreted what was said, rather than what was said itself. I can see how you would have misinterpreted it like that, which is why I expanded upon it so you could better understand.

Do you not agree that the opposite of it´s actual meaning would have been ridiculously stupid? I mean geezus, you´d probably need to have a borderline mental retardation to believe what you thought it meant.

At times it´s best to be reminded that words are representations of ideas only. If words are received to mean something different than the idea behind those words, then miscommunication is simply going to happen.
As Shaw said:

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."


 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/20/2011 07:40 PM     
  @QA  
 
"It seems that you´re more concerned with how you interpreted what was said, rather than what was said itself."

Hardly. I´m concerned with you voicing opinions about how scientists think when your statements belie any solid understanding of what a scientific consensus or conclusion is. We have an epidemic in this country of people not understanding the fundamentals of science and how science works and, quite frankly, it´s dangerous.


"I can see how you would have misinterpreted it like that, which is why I expanded upon it so you could better understand."

Except there was no expansion. You reiterated the same line a second time as clarification of the first.


"I mean geezus, you´d probably need to have a borderline mental retardation to believe what you thought it meant."

Thanks for the personal attack. But no, I do not. I merely pointed out that your statement, about scientific conclusions equating to the scientist not thinking, was incorrect. At best, it´s hyperbole, but still incorrect.


"At times it´s best to be reminded that words are representations of ideas only. If words are received to mean something different than the idea behind those words, then miscommunication is simply going to happen."

And if the words spoken are most literally taken in a way that does not convey the ideas of the speaker, is that the fault of the listener, or the speaker?


As Shaw said:
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

And out comes the Bartlett´s... again.
 
  by: zyste     06/21/2011 03:58 AM     
  @QA  
 
"There are suspicious funds which come from both sides."

Since the only groups interested in fighting global warming are liberal these days, it´s no surprise that most global warming research is funded by liberal groups. That´s worlds different from an industry funding a campaign to deliberate confuse the public and the media, as stated at my link. And there´s way more money in doing nothing about global warming than there is in trying to get people to fight it.

"I have even seen a polling of scientists who have said many scientists have fudged data to keep their funding."

And yet no link ...

"If you´re a ´member of the reality based community´ then do you recognize the link that tbagger gave you?

http://www.youtube.com/...

How do you explain such accuracy?"

I once saw a blind squirrel find a nut, too -- didn´t make me think it could see. Ron Paul has made a career out of being a prophet of doom. Since bad things are bound to happen, some of his "predictions" are bound to come true.

Besides, Ron Paul is often full of shit, too:

http://factcheck.org/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/21/2011 04:21 AM     
  @zyste  
 
"I´m concerned with you voicing opinions about how scientists think when your statements belie any solid understanding of what a scientific consensus or conclusion is. "

* Only your interpretation of my words meant something that ridiculously stupid. Your initial interpretation was wrong, regardless of how much you may want to cling to that interpretation.

Does this famous quotation by Martin H. Fischer ring any bells?

"A conclusion is the place where you got tired thinking."

-----------------------------------

"We have an epidemic in this country of people not understanding the fundamentals of science and how science works and, quite frankly, it´s dangerous."

* I would agree with that, but would add that it also extends to logic itself.

-----------------------------------

"Except there was no expansion. You reiterated the same line a second time as clarification of the first."

* I did expand on my words, as I used about 3-4x as many words to explain the same concept.

See, you can´t just change the meanings of my own words to mean what you want them to mean. There is very little logic in that, as it relies mainly upon baseless speculation.

-----------------------------------

"Thanks for the personal attack."

* That wasn´t a personal attack, you (again) completely misinterpreted what I wrote. It didn´t mean anything close to what you thought it meant. I will expand on my words once again:

"I mean geezus, you´d probably need to have a borderline mental retardation to believe what you thought it meant."

^^ That means that you would probably need to have a level of borderline retardation to believe "it", AKA the following: that all scientists come to conclusions, stop thinking permanently and therefore never change their conclusions, even in the face of new evidence.

That´s the "it" in ´believing it´. Understand now?

-----------------------------------

"And if the words spoken are most literally taken in a way that does not convey the ideas of the speaker, is that the fault of the listener, or the speaker?"

* Literal interpretations vary; as communication is a 2 way street. My own literal interpretation of my words has obviously been much different than yours.

-----------------------------------

"And out comes the Bartlett´s... again."

* So I provide you another example of what I´m talking of in someone else´s words, so my words wouldn´t yet again be butchered by your incorrect interpretations, and you give this in response? How about a "thank you" instead?
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/21/2011 10:46 PM     
  @zyste  
 
You can´t argue with Authority, and QA is never wrong... like... ~ever~. I might not be aware of everything he´s ever said on SN, but I´ve yet to catch him being wrong about anything... Even if you do, it´s only because you misinterpreted what he said.

So... just thought you might want to save yourself the trouble of constantly being corrected.
 
  by: vlynxy   06/21/2011 11:07 PM     
  @ben_reilly  
 
"Since the only groups interested in fighting global warming are liberal these days, it´s no surprise that most global warming research is funded by liberal groups. That´s worlds different from an industry funding a campaign to deliberate confuse the public and the media, as stated at my link."

* Who says that the "liberal groups" aren´t deliberately doing it to confuse the public and media? Do "liberal groups" not tend to favor restrictions, regulations and taxes on businesses in the first place?

-------------------------------

"And there´s way more money in doing nothing about global warming than there is in trying to get people to fight it."

* It really depends on who you´re talking about. Al Gore is set to make billions if government forces these restrictions on businesses and people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Government pursuing a global warming alarmist stance would only enrich a few, like Al Gore, while impoverishing millions who rely on the fossil fuel industries to put food on the table.

-------------------------------

"And yet no link ..."

* I spent well over 20 minutes looking for the link again and I just can´t find it. It was a report by a UK based newspaper which showed that the majority of scientists have either themselves lied about their findings or changed their methodology so it´s more favorable to the position of those who fund their research.
I did find something similar though:
http://www.americanthinker.com/...

-------------------------------

"I once saw a blind squirrel find a nut, too -- didn´t make me think it could see. Ron Paul has made a career out of being a prophet of doom. Since bad things are bound to happen, some of his "predictions" are bound to come true."

* So when the vast majority of what he´s been saying for years comes to pass, it´s akin to a blind squirrel finding a nut? For someone who claims to be on the side of reality, you´re demonstrating that you´re too biased to recognize it.

Also, that factcheck.org website needs to get its facts straight. Ron Paul never claimed a nefarious conspiracy. What he said was that there was an ideology which wants a North American Union, just as there was an ideology which wanted a European Union.

CNN: North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway
http://video.google.com/...
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/21/2011 11:51 PM     
  @vlynxy  
 
Thanks for the ad hominem.

IMO you would have to be quite the dullard to believe that scientists come to conclusions and then never change those conclusions in the face of new evidence.

In fact, could that be what you and zyste might be doing? If you are relying on a bad interpretation in the face of new evidence to the contrary, then that is exactly what you would be doing.

I find that it is best to bring a logical, scientific mindset into all areas.

Also, I wanted to edit in something which dispels another one of your false claims. http://shortnews.com/... Post at: 05/13/2011 12:22 AM

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/22/2011 12:01 AM     
  @QA  
 
You´re most welcome =) And Thank ~you~ for correcting my error, QA.

I´m often amazed by the great service you do this little community. It´s a wonder why you don´t share your great mind and intellect with a much larger community, where it would be even ~more~ appreciated, like ronpaulforums.com. He might even notice you, and pick you up as an adviser... or you might share your brilliance where it´s much more needed, like
us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/ (the World of Warcraft forums)

Such talent and genius for always being right, is just being wasted on such a small group of simple minded folk, like us.
 
  by: vlynxy   06/22/2011 12:15 AM     
  @ vlynxy  
 
I already showed you an example of me being wrong and acknowledging it. You may not have seen it; it´s in my last post.

I have no problem being wrong, as it´s how you learn. However, I will never say I´m wrong just because someone misinterprets what I meant.

 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/22/2011 12:20 AM     
  @QA  
 
Aye. I saw it, and thanked you for it, the correction to my error, that is.

~curtsies and bows her head~

Or would prefer I grovel?
 
  by: vlynxy   06/22/2011 12:28 AM     
  @QA  
 
Loathe as I am to waste more of my time on you, here goes:

"* Who says that the "liberal groups" aren´t deliberately doing it to confuse the public and media? Do "liberal groups" not tend to favor restrictions, regulations and taxes on businesses in the first place?"

Liberals aren´t in favor of "restrictions, regulations and taxes on businesses." We´re in favor of running society in a way that benefits most members, and preserving the environment for future generations. Sometimes those goals involve the things you listed off, but those are not ends unto themselves.

You amaze me. You have flipped from embracing liberal positions just a few years ago to deriding them in the manner of the most antagonistic liberal-bashing, right-wing propagandist. You attack your former beliefs with a zeal I´ve never seen before. You must hate your old personality.

Thousands of well-qualified scientists across the world endorse, and indeed have contributed to, the theory of anthropogenic global warming. You simply cannot get that state of reality from a liberal plot to confuse the public. You get that state of reality when global warming is real and caused by man.

"Al Gore is set to make billions if government forces these restrictions on businesses and people."

And you´re actually daft enough to compare the personal wealth of ONE MAN to the windfall profits reaped by the oil industry? Seriously?

Seven of the Top 10 most profitable corporations in the world are oil and gas companies, and you want to tell me about the billions Al Gore might make?

ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP split a TRILLION dollars profit in ONE YEAR and you want to tell me about the billions Al Gore might make?

Seriously? You really want to make that comparison?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

"Government pursuing a global warming alarmist stance would only enrich a few, like Al Gore, while impoverishing millions who rely on the fossil fuel industries to put food on the table."

Wait a minute; are you actually suggesting that a shift from fossil fuels would put the energy industry out of business? Do you seriously think ExxonMobil, etc. would just go belly-up if we began a shift away from using fossil fuels?

You know what? Screw this. You´re not playing on the level and you´re just trying to fuck with my head and waste my time with idiotic bullshit. You cannot possibly be serious, and you can have fun trying to sucker somebody else with this garbage.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/22/2011 01:01 AM     
  @vlynxy  
 
I didn´t know which error you were talking about; as you could have potentially made 2.

Error 1: That I never admit that I´m wrong

Error 2 (if you meant it): That I say ´you didn´t understand me´ when I´m wrong as opposed to when someone doesn´t understand me

I don´t have anything against you, but you haven´t even contributed anything to this discussion besides apparent attempts to belittle me. Should we then assume your motive is for purposes of retribution?
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/22/2011 01:31 AM     
  @ben_reilly  
 
"Liberals aren´t in favor of "restrictions, regulations and taxes on businesses." We´re in favor of running society in a way that benefits most members, and preserving the environment for future generations. Sometimes those goals involve the things you listed off, but those are not ends unto themselves."

* So the answer is "Yes" or "No"? Do Liberal Groups not tend to favor restrictions, regulations, and taxes on businesses? Said in another way, "Do Liberal groups not believe that restrictions, regulations, and taxes on businesses help towards their ideological goals?"

------------------------

"You amaze me. You have flipped from embracing liberal positions just a few years ago to deriding them in the manner of the most antagonistic liberal-bashing, right-wing propagandist. You attack your former beliefs with a zeal I´ve never seen before. You must hate your old personality."

* Haha what? So asking "Who says that the "liberal groups" aren´t deliberately doing it to confuse the public and media?" constitutes "the most antagonistic liberal-bashing" of a "right-wing propagandist"?

From my perspective, I´m taking the scientific approach of asking questions.

------------------------

"Thousands of well-qualified scientists across the world endorse, and indeed have contributed to, the theory of anthropogenic global warming. You simply cannot get that state of reality from a liberal plot to confuse the public."

* So you think it´s impossible then? That actually would explain a lot.

------------------------

And you´re actually daft enough to compare the personal wealth of ONE MAN to the windfall profits reaped by the oil industry? Seriously?

* No I just gave Al Gore as a single example. There are others who will make exorbitant profits as well.
http://www.thegwpf.org/...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

Now before you say something similar as last time; no, those aren´t the only ones either.

------------------------

"Wait a minute; are you actually suggesting that a shift from fossil fuels would put the energy industry out of business?"

* Nope, that is not suggested by the following:
"Government pursuing a global warming alarmist stance would only enrich a few, like Al Gore, while impoverishing millions who rely on the fossil fuel industries to put food on the table."

------------------------

"You know what? Screw this. You´re not playing on the level and you´re just trying to fuck with my head and waste my time with idiotic bullshit. You cannot possibly be serious, and you can have fun trying to sucker somebody else with this garbage."

* None of your accusations here are accurate, but suit yourself.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/22/2011 02:10 AM     
  @QA  
 
I´m not even going to bother arguing with you on this point any more. You make incorrect statements about something you don´t understand and then expect people to read your mind.

If you consistently treated scientific theory and information in the same fashion you´ve been doing here, my engineering professors would have ripped you apart and moved to have you dismissed from the program.
It´s probably not a long-shot that you have practically no formal scientific education.


Oh, and I can quote too. (Just not as excessively as you choose to)

"He who trains his tongue to quote the learned sages, will be known far and wide as a smart ass." -Howard Kandel
 
  by: zyste     06/22/2011 05:30 AM     
  @QA  
 
Retribution? Not precisely. It just get´s old, quick, watching someone tear apart almost everything everyone says, and pointing out their each and every "logical fallacy"... regardless of whether it´s even correct or not.

This isn´t a debate class, and I can´t imagine ~any~ professor every tolerating that past a single day, even if it was.

Lets pretend, for just a moment, that I actually thought you were right 50% of the time, and also thought you were sincerely trying to Help people think more logically and rationally... Do you really think it ~helps~ when it seems more like you´re always talking down to people? As if you´re trying to teach an ignorant child?

Several times you´ve twisted the meaning of what I´ve tried to express to you, and turned it into meaning something else, and then tore apart my argument, based on what you decided I was saying.... and then you turn around and accuse other people, of treating you that way...

So yes, my last couple of comments were a little retributive, and this is probably about the last time I´m even going to pay attention to anything you say, to anyone. Because I think it´s absurd. And is why I suggested you try behaving this same way someplace a little more populated, because I´d be interested to see how long it takes for you get banned as a troll.
 
  by: vlynxy   06/22/2011 06:33 AM     
  @QA  
 
Although I ~do~ like a lot of the articles you´ve submitted, and won´t avoid that part of your presence, and will still give them good ratings... I´m just pretty much done being involved with any sort of discussion with you.
 
  by: vlynxy   06/22/2011 06:36 AM     
  @zyste  
 

So by this response can we safely say, with near certainty, that you won´t accept anything but your own initial interpretation of what was said? It seems so.

Can you even logically dispute what I said in my last post to you? I suspect that if you could, you would. If not, I invite you to do it.

As I see it, anyone who understands science and the scientific method also understands that you cannot begin from a biased assumption, then build upon that assumption without any scientific merit. Science requires that you question even your own assumptions, lest that they be considered not scientific at all.

Also contrary to your claims, I do have an extensive education in the realm of science; and have tested to be well within the genius level of IQ.

Now I don´t consider IQ to be a good measure of intellectual ability at all, as it has many flaws, but some apparently do.

Perhaps you should take a little advice from the genius Albert Einstein himself. In Einstein´s office at Princeton University, he has the following sign hanging for all to see:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/22/2011 06:59 AM     
  @vlynxy  
 
If I ever misinterpreted what you were saying to me, I would ask that you point it out just as I have pointed it out to others here.

It´s entirely your choice to discuss things with me. IMHO those who are open to alternate possibilities invite free and open discussion, not stifle it.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     06/22/2011 07:19 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com