Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:05 AM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,384
Something for Conservatives

It's enlightening, sure to piss off a certain few and completely explains many facets of our frustration with the political left.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mi...ative/?print=1


Note: I posted this in the Pit because it will get flak, and would likely be moved here because of it anyhow.
  #2  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:17 AM
Superdude Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 9,975
So, you're posting a link, with no actual thoughts of your own to supplement it?

We're not going to do your homework for you. If you want to discuss this issue, make your case.
__________________
"Well, let me just go on record as saying that I would never shoot a cat.[...]. Unless it was approaching in a threatening manner... or refused to stop upon my command. I would probably just fire a warning shot to make my point, but that's really a field decision. I can't commit to it at this juncture."
  #3  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:51 AM
El_Kabong El_Kabong is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 14,679
You're posting this "to piss off a certain few"? Good luck with that.

Last edited by El_Kabong; 01-15-2018 at 06:51 AM.
  #4  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:11 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,624
Seems to be a complaint from a science show narrator that falled for an internet troll.

To me it looks as if the Daily Caller is running out of subjects that avoid dealing with how the Republican fish head is rotting the whole body.

The science narrator does seem to concentrate in one item that seems somehow to be attractive to some conservatives. To deny the existance of Black Holes. AFAIK there are better science subjects to doubt than those.

https://www.space.com/15421-black-ho...ery-sdcmp.html

https://www.sciencealert.com/superma...star-formation

Perhaps it is because Einstein predicted them and nowadays several conservatives hate him because they dumbly see his relativistic thories as also originating relativism in moral or societal settings?

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-15-2018 at 07:13 AM.
  #5  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:11 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,213
Firstly, we should duly note that the person who bragged about thinking for himself has just started a thread with an article link but no actual analysis.

Secondly, the link describes how conservative talk show host nut-picked some Facebook comment by a random person (I see nothing to suggest Ms Bright holds any noteworthy position or represents anyone other than herself, although any corrections are welcome) and then is a massively patronizing dick to her (which the article describes as "killing Rebecca with kindness"). Which is kind of petty and stupid.

Thirdly, his "argument", for lack of a better word, is frequently ludicrous. That something isn't conclusively proven doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance of it being true. His comparison of something completely unprovable (the existence of a supernatural being) and something with a significant weight of evidence behind it (climate change) is silly if not highly disingenuous.

Fourthly, for someone objecting to the term "science-doubting", he spends a surprisingly amount of time casting doubt on science.

Fifthly, Rowe goes on to focus on her categorization of him as "ultra-conservative" and to assume that this is what is driving her objections rather than his poor grasp of both science and basic logic, which he demonstrates throughout.

OTOH, perhaps the OP is correct and this does completely explain many facets of the right's frustration with the political left. I mean, who likes to be repeatedly called out on their bullshit over and over and over again? it must be very frustrating indeed.

Last edited by Gyrate; 01-15-2018 at 07:13 AM.
  #6  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:09 AM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,623
My thought, confirmed by about a dozen quick google hits, was that science never said there were 100 billion galaxies. The statement was always that there were AT LEAST 100 billion galaxies. So the discovery that there were two trillion galaxies did not, in any way, prove them wrong.

Look at it this way. Suppose you took your life savings and enrolled in Trump University because Donald Trump personally promised you that you would make at least a million a year by investing in real estate. And say you ended up making 5 million a year. Would that mean Donald’s original statement was really really wrong? No, I bet you would think he was more right than anyone ever knew.

But it is a good example of how conservatives can manipulate a phrase to totally change its meaning then bamboozle their not so bright “base” into jumping on their bandwagon of stupid.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-15-2018 at 08:09 AM.
  #7  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:52 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
It's enlightening, sure to piss off a certain few and completely explains many facets of our frustration with the political left.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mi...ative/?print=1


Note: I posted this in the Pit because it will get flak, and would likely be moved here because of it anyhow.
I like Mike Rowe. Whatever his politics, he seems like a good guy.

You, however, are a fucking imbecile.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #8  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:08 AM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,664
This is the same Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs? Sad. I used to like that guy.
  #9  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:28 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
And the dumb fart puts it in the pit! It's like the jokes writing themselves.
  #10  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:33 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
It's enlightening, sure to piss off a certain few and completely explains many facets of our frustration with the political left.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/12/mi...ative/?print=1


Note: I posted this in the Pit because it will get flak, and would likely be moved here because of it anyhow.
With global warming, ignoring it or being wrong has serious consequences. There really aren't any consequences for being wrong about whether black holes exist, or whether there are 2 trillion galaxies or 100 billion.

That doesn't even factor in the other benefits from renewable energy. Cheaper energy, less health problems from energy (coal causes tons of health problems), independence from the middle east, sustainability, etc.

If the global warming deniers are wrong, that means endless trillions of dollars in property damage, reduced economic growth and lots of human suffering and refugees. It could set humanity back by decades.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/...27b1ed7ff0.jpg

Also there are people disagreeing with science who are in science, and then there are laymen disagreeing with science due to political reasons.

People within science disagreeing with each other is one thing. But a lot of laymen have no training, and they disagree for political reasons. Republicans are much more likely to deny evolution and climate change than democrats. It isn't because republicans are trained in these fields and are seeing info the rest of us aren't. It is because their ideological agenda isn't served by these things. Thats not the same thing as saying 'well scientists in the field disagree'. This is people with no training disagreeing for reasons that have nothing to do with the science.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-15-2018 at 09:35 AM.
  #11  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:37 AM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,074
It's a universal constant that any social media related article saying some form of [X] totally destroys [Y] is going to be disappointing.
  #12  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:41 AM
BubbaDog BubbaDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: KC MO or there abouts
Posts: 5,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
My thought, confirmed by about a dozen quick google hits, was that science never said there were 100 billion galaxies. The statement was always that there were AT LEAST 100 billion galaxies. So the discovery that there were two trillion galaxies did not, in any way, prove them wrong.
..............
But it is a good example of how conservatives can manipulate a phrase to totally change its meaning then bamboozle their not so bright “base” into jumping on their bandwagon of stupid.
That's funny, my Google search turned up a number of articles stating that the scientists estimated between 100 and 200 galaxies in 1995 and that estimated was assumed accurate until recently. Example here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...laxies/504185/

But then again, I wasn't looking to bash Mike Rowe for being an ultra conservative.
In fact, if most conservatives could defend their thoughts as well as Rowe I'd probably have more respect for them.

So don't let my thoughts get in the way of your bias.
  #13  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:47 AM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 44,459
That cite says between 100 billion and 200 billion that human technology can detect. That’s a big qualifier, there.
  #14  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:51 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
This is the same Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs? Sad. I used to like that guy.
I don't get it. He was defending science and education.
  #15  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:53 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
It's a universal constant that any social media related article saying some form of [X] totally destroys [Y] is going to be disappointing.
QFT. I've yet to see anyone "destroyed" by a commentary or article. At best you get [Y] offering a decent rebuttal of whatever [X] said, and at worst (and more often) you get [Y] saying "Nuh-uh" followed by a string of abuse aimed at [X]. And that's true no matter what the affiliations of [X] and [Y].
  #16  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:57 AM
Buck Godot Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
With global warming, ignoring it or being wrong has serious consequences. There really aren't any consequences for being wrong about whether black holes exist, or whether there are 2 trillion galaxies or 100 billion.

Also the reason for questioning these beliefs come from newly available data and theories. It doesn't come from a fear of losing profits. The "scientists" arguing against global warming, or evolution or the existence of god, all turn the scientific method on its head. They start with the conclusion they want to be true and then scrounge around for data that might support it.
  #17  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:59 AM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
It's enlightening, sure to piss off a certain few...
Ah yes, the "sweet, sweet liberal tears" approach to modern politics. When you get your talking points from Eric Cartman, it's time to re-examine your priorities.
  #18  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:15 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 10,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
So, you're posting a link, with no actual thoughts of your own to supplement it?

We're not going to do your homework for you. If you want to discuss this issue, make your case.
I was under the impression that posting a link with no description whatsoever was "frowned upon." Perhaps there's no actual rule, but I never click on links like that.
  #19  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:23 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
A very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
  #20  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:24 AM
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,227
I just want to point out that black holes have actually been observed doing the things that are predicted they would do. And that there are always people who propose wild theories as a way of trying to advance science. They usually don't pan out, but they can help challenge the other theories and make them more robust. And, if they do work out, they can open new paths.

I agree, BTW, that he comes off as not really understanding science in that exchange. For one thing, he doesn't understand confidence levels or skepticism.
  #21  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:26 AM
BubbaDog BubbaDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: KC MO or there abouts
Posts: 5,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
I don't get it. He was defending science and education.
Some people got all offended when he said doubting science was important. They equate that with global warning deniers, flat earth believers and creationism.

But he is right. Scientific method is based on skepticism. Science creates evidence but skepticism drives science to create more evidence. Without skepticism, without the desire to prove science hypothesis, scientific knowledge stagnates.
  #22  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:35 AM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
I don't get it. He was defending science and education.
Maybe I read it with a bias, but I got it as he was coming across as a denier, and condescending. If wrong, then I apologize to the board and Mr Rowe.

Have to be careful of unconscious bias. One misread word and you get an entirely different understanding of the piece.
  #23  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:09 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15 Screw the NRA.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 49,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
A very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
You can close this thread now. Everything anybody had to know about it has been answered.
  #24  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:19 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
Maybe I read it with a bias, but I got it as he was coming across as a denier, and condescending. If wrong, then I apologize to the board and Mr Rowe.

Have to be careful of unconscious bias. One misread word and you get an entirely different understanding of the piece.
Based on the article I even noted that his aside about climate change was just to make a point about skepticism, so until someone quotes him with clear denials I did not see a big problem there, and I know a lot of deniers of that.

Hence, the only odd thing I did notice, it is very peculiar to see complete denials of black holes when the evidence is more compelling about their existence. Still it is more peculiar that a nutpick is what the OP, The Daily Caller and Rowe sees as worthy of their time,
  #25  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:32 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 16,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
It's enlightening, sure to piss off a certain few and completely explains many facets of our frustration with the political left....Note: I posted this in the Pit because it will get flak, and would likely be moved here because of it anyhow.
Dear anomalous1: If you don't care enough to post a summary or a few explanatory excerpts, I (and IIRC several other Dopers) don't care enough to click your link.

HTH.
  #26  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:47 AM
Poto Poto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 2,695
I didn't read it well. Something about ignorant people. Yes, they get to vote for Trumps etc. Deal with it. They will never change. You might be able to trade some items. We get to keep science and you get to keep your cells phones. If not, you give up the phones.
  #27  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:18 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Also the reason for questioning these beliefs come from newly available data and theories. It doesn't come from a fear of losing profits. The "scientists" arguing against global warming, or evolution or the existence of god, all turn the scientific method on its head. They start with the conclusion they want to be true and then scrounge around for data that might support it.
Yup. I think a big part of why people reject climate change is profits (fossil fuels are a multi trillion dollar industry that support multiple governments) and they don't want to agree with democrats on anything.

The scientific method is just following evidence. What Rowe seems to be saying is 'scientists were wrong about how many galaxies there are, so I don't think climate change happened'. He left off the part that he and people like him reject climate change because of emotional and ideological issues, not because they understand or care about the impacts or science of the issue.

I had someone once try to convince me climate change was wrong because scientists were wrong that brontosauruses were real. Their argument is if science is wrong in one situation, they could be wrong in all situations.

Yeah they could, but they follow the evidence. The climate change skeptics do not understand or care about the evidence, they are motivated by an ideological resistance.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #28  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:27 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Yup. I think a big part of why people reject climate change is profits (fossil fuels are a multi trillion dollar industry that support multiple governments) and they don't want to agree with democrats on anything.

The scientific method is just following evidence. What Rowe seems to be saying is 'scientists were wrong about how many galaxies there are, so I don't think climate change happened'. He left off the part that he and people like him reject climate change because of emotional and ideological issues, not because they understand or care about the impacts or science of the issue.

I had someone once try to convince me climate change was wrong because scientists were wrong that brontosauruses were real. Their argument is if science is wrong in one situation, they could be wrong in all situations.

Yeah they could, but they follow the evidence. The climate change skeptics do not understand or care about the evidence, they are motivated by an ideological resistance.
That's not what he said.
Quote:
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.

Last edited by running coach; 01-15-2018 at 12:29 PM.
  #29  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:27 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,041
To my knowledge Mike Rowe has never claimed to be a conservative, he just hasn't denied it. He certainly doesn't seem to be a Trumpy, and lives in SF where you can't be too conservative but at the same time find the environment a huge thought bubble.

The doublethink is kind of funny: one side claiming him when it's convenient, the other deciding that his statements are wrong because of being one of "them." I don't think he's wrong at all, though that doesn't mean that the OP isn't being disingenuous.
  #30  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:53 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
That's not what he said.
That is exactly what he said.

"Science was wrong in situation A because informed people without an ideological agenda who were pursuing facts overturned existing beliefs, so there is a reasonable chance it is wrong in the areas where I have an ideological agenda and no training or knowledge" That is the jist of his message.

I'm all for skepticism, when it is done with good intentions and knowledge. In my experience climate change critics lack both. Most are wildly uninformed about climate science (as we all are who don't work in the field) and their motivations are to disprove a scientific consensus that they dislike for emotional, political, financial and ideological reasons. Galileo didn't disprove the idea that the earth was the center of the universe because he had no training in the field of astronomy but hated liberals or because he made money off the idea. He promoted it because that is what the facts said and he was trained to gather those facts. In my experience most critics of climate change are conservatives with 0 training in anything related to science outside of some high school courses they took 30 years ago. Why are their opinions valid when it is obvious they are both completely untrained and motivated by the conclusion first and then finding reasons to support the existing conclusion?

You might as well say 'scientists used to believe in a brontosaurus, so now I as a christian think creationism is plausible'
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-15-2018 at 01:55 PM.
  #31  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:57 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
That is exactly what he said.

"Science was wrong in situation A because informed people without an ideological agenda who were pursuing facts overturned existing beliefs, so there is a reasonable chance it is wrong in the areas where I have an ideological agenda and no training or knowledge" That is the jist of his message.

I'm all for skepticism, when it is done with good intentions and knowledge. In my experience climate change critics lack both. Most are wildly uninformed about climate science (as we all are who don't work in the field) and their motivations are to disprove a scientific consensus that they dislike for emotional, political, financial and ideological reasons. Galileo didn't disprove the idea that the earth was the center of the universe because he had no training in the field of astronomy but hated liberals or because he made money off the idea. He promoted it because that is what the facts said and he was trained to gather those facts. In my experience most critics of climate change are conservatives with 0 training in anything related to science outside of some high school courses they took 30 years ago. Why are their opinions valid when it is obvious they are both completely untrained and motivated by the conclusion first and then finding reasons to support the existing conclusion?

You might as well say 'scientists used to believe in a brontosaurus, so now I as a christian think creationism is plausible'
He said
Quote:
Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance.
  #32  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:07 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,704
Again, I'm all for skepticism if the following conditions are met
  • The people doing the doubting are informed and trained
  • They have no existing ideological agenda and no financial, emotional or cognitive investment in validating a pre-existing conclusion

If climate scientists start, en masse, saying climate change is bunk then wonderful. We should still transition to renewables because they are cheaper, more sustainable and healthier, but the pressure to do it ASAP is off if we don't have to worry about trillions of dollars in property damage or damage to the global ecosystem.

But to my knowledge that hasn't happened. The people who deny it fail both of the conditions listed above. People with 0 education and training who start with the conclusion and then find ways to justify the conclusion are not scientists and that is not science. Science was created to get away from people who thought like that.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-15-2018 at 02:09 PM.
  #33  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:13 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Again, I'm all for skepticism if the following conditions are met
  • The people doing the doubting are informed and trained
  • They have no existing ideological agenda and no financial, emotional or cognitive investment in validating a pre-existing conclusion

If climate scientists start, en masse, saying climate change is bunk then wonderful. We should still transition to renewables because they are cheaper, more sustainable and healthier, but the pressure to do it ASAP is off if we don't have to worry about trillions of dollars in property damage or damage to the global ecosystem.

But to my knowledge that hasn't happened. The people who deny it fail both of the conditions listed above. People with 0 education and training who start with the conclusion and then find ways to justify the conclusion are not scientists and that is not science. Science was created to get away from people who thought like that.
Where did he deny science? I'm not seeing it.
  #34  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:19 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 56,404
Has the OP ever returned to any his 93 threads?
  #35  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:39 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Let's throw him a bone.

Hey, OP, I'm a progressive and I think the woman calling for Mike Rowe to be fired is a reactionary kook who doesn't represent me, my views, or those of the majority of rational progressives.

It's okay for you can come out of your safe space now, snowflake.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #36  
Old 01-15-2018, 03:40 PM
PigArcher PigArcher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC (From LA)
Posts: 1,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Where did he deny science? I'm not seeing it.
Denying the scientific consensus on climate change is denying science, by definition. Claiming that you're just favoring "skepticism" doesn't change that.

What advances in climate science have been made by "skeptics" who insist that all evidence of climate change is completely made up? How has cutting funding for climate research or banning government agencies from preparing for climate change or even using the words advanced climate science?

Even if Rowe himself doesn't support that position, he's carrying water for it by pretending denialism is about healthy skepticism and the scientific process. It's the opposite of science.
  #37  
Old 01-15-2018, 04:06 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Where did he deny science? I'm not seeing it.
Healthy skepticism is when informed, educated, trained people who have no investment in the conclusion come across and present evidence that the existing conclusion is wrong.

Climate change deniers for the most part do none of that. They may have some scientists on their side, but they are in the minority and usually get funding to support an agenda.

Quote:
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.
People doubt the existence of a supernatural being due to a lack of evidence. People believe in climate change because of a large amount of evidence.

Healthy skepticism among informed people is great. Skepticism in pursuit of an ideological agenda among the uninformed is not, it is the opposite of science.

If Mike Rowe has training in climate science, and zero financial or ideological agendas and he said climate change was not going to melt the ice caps, great. He can present his findings.

But if he is just a person with no training or education in the field who is motivated by ideological conclusions, that isn't science. That is the opposite of science and what science was designed to get away from.

Saying 'my ideology wants XYZ, therefore XYZ is true' is no better than saying 'my god wants XYZ, therefore XYZ is true'. It is the opposite of science.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #38  
Old 01-15-2018, 04:39 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
You can close this thread now. Everything anybody had to know about it has been answered.
Wow, Silenus, I had no idea you were such a fanboy of me!
  #39  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:05 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Where did he deny science? I'm not seeing it.
While I do agree with you, I pointed out that if elsewhere he showed as such, then I see how other posters did notice one of the latest developments of denialism, namely to claim that we should always be skeptics, but what I see deniers doing now is to fall for a zeno like paradox of their own doing. (instead of an infinity running turtle paradox, it is a request that scientists never advise to do something until being 100% sure, but then again, science does not work like that either).

As we can see in other places, Mike Rowe has become a darling for conservatives for "telling scientists to be skeptics" about things like climate change.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/bo...of-the-century
Quote:
This weekend, in a bar called Grumpy’s, I listened as two professors from Berkeley discussed with great passion the inevitable consequences of ignoring climate change. When I was invited to share my opinion, I shrugged and said, “Beats me, fellas. Last week the smartest people on the planet thought there were 100 billion galaxies in the universe. They were off by a couple trillion. I’m not really sure what’s in store for planet earth.”

I was surprised by their response. One frowned real hard, and stared into his beer. The other asked if I was some kind of “Climate Denier.”

“Not at all,” I said. “Any fool can see there’s a climate.”

“You know what I mean,” he said. “Are you skeptical of the fact than man is destroying the planet by heating it up to an unnatural degree?”

“I’m skeptical of most things,” I said. “But who cares what I think? I’m just a narrator. You guys are the actual scientists, right?”

“We are,” said the one staring at his beer.

“Well then, tell me this. Isn’t skepticism at the very heart of scientific inquiry?”

“It is.”

“Then how come people who question the claims around global warming are called “Deniers?”

“Because Global Warming is real, and man is causing it. And our planet is in terrible trouble.”

Then the other one chimed in with this. “Right now, this planet is one of the worst places to be in the universe.”

I nodded. “I’m sure you’re right,” I said. “But if it turns out you’re not, and you need someone to walk it back for you – give me a call. I’m in the booth all the time.”

I’m not sure they got it.
So, it may be that he is not a conservative, but having to grasp at straws (as he admits, he is only a narrator and he is an actor, not a scientist) is what many deniers who are usually conservative are left to grab on.

What that actor and narrator misses is that history shows that for more than 100 years this issue has been looked at and originally scientists knew that a CO2 increase will warm the earth but that we were safe because of several physical items that were thought to sequester CO2 promptly and reduce the warming effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Researchers like Callendar that were worried about the warming (in the 1930's!) were found to had made mistakes, so scientists of the day did not worry.

Around the 1950s however, scientists like Gilbert Plass found that CO2 did not absorb heat as it was assumed and almost at the same time evidence was found that told scientists that the oceans and other natural sinks of CO2 were not going to prevent warming. Double oops, and that is what skepticism actually got us about 60 years ago.

Ignorant people like Rowe and the denier conservatives are not telling anyone about the mountains of skepticism that researchers already endured to get the current consensus. It is more sensible now to be very skeptical of what the deniers with powerful support are attempting to do in the popular media, not only to notice their increased skepticism in their reporting were there is less found among experts nowadays, but also that on top of that they are not being taken to task for avoiding telling others about the whole history of how it was discovered that global warming gases warm the earth and all the trials and science done before.

The Discovery of Global Warming by Physicist and historian Spencer Weart
(Chapter about the history about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-15-2018 at 06:07 PM.
  #40  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:19 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,680
All I’m seeing is the problem with the right wing media. Take one crank, and suddenly they represent all of the left.

Sadly, the Daily Caller didn’t even realize that the Democrat Socialist Borg Collective decided three months ago that the SJW in question was no longer in charge of our collective opinions on every matter. Now, it’s Harold “Weedsmoker Snowflake” Cairns of Berkeley, California, who lives near the big trash can in People’s Park and drives the pickup that has all the bumper stickers.
  #41  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:52 PM
Algher Algher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,548
Rowe regularly replies to cranks on his Facebook page, and this is just one more. I still like what he does in regards to the Trades through his charity, and his letter to Eagle Scouts is one of my favorites.

http://mikerowe.com/about-mike/eagle-scout-letter/
  #42  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:04 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
All I’m seeing is the problem with the right wing media. Take one crank, and suddenly they represent all of the left.

Sadly, the Daily Caller didn’t even realize that the Democrat Socialist Borg Collective decided three months ago that the SJW in question was no longer in charge of our collective opinions on every matter. Now, it’s Harold “Weedsmoker Snowflake” Cairns of Berkeley, California, who lives near the big trash can in People’s Park and drives the pickup that has all the bumper stickers.
I swear to Christ, if I have to listen to one more lecture about composting I'm going to garrote him with his own love beads.
  #43  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:39 PM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,384
I did, in fact post a description of what it was, but I also did not want to spoil it. I had to put a small disclaimer about it angering some folks because I know and knew it would anger some but I had to post it anyway because the way he explores, with contempt, the subject at hand is typically what we conservative types actually consider a great argument. It was the type of argument that pretty much typifies the arguments we get from many on left and how they are properly dealt with.
I am quite sure the liberals on this board do exercise better and more substantiated arguments, there is no question of that and I am not questioning that. I apologize for my Pit insulting yesterday, was having a recent meltdown. I have no excuse for that, but we all have opinions, we don't necessarily have to respect them, but they are all important nonetheless. Mike Rowe's post and reply, whether it was to a troll or not is what should be expected from all conservatives, myself included, when dealing with the barrage of nonsensical insults we have to deal with because the vast majority of us do not retain some cohesive group-think despite what some may have you believe, and not all liberals do either. I am referencing the extreme types. If you don't agree, that is fine, it is your right. It is quite pleasant when others share our values though.

Thanks for reading it!

To the above; I am not sure what you mean by return to my other '93' posts? I do sometimes post and forget to check back, if that is what you mean.

Also, GIGObuster, I thank you again for your well thought out rebuttal, this is what debate is supposed to be. I do not think he is outright denying science or the scientific method though, more of a "keep your eyes open, you never know" attitude.

Wesley Clark
,
Also a very good and very mature, civil response. I thank you and appreciate that. I do however see it as him (Rowe)
not denying global warming, but rather, accepting that it exists, as well as the human impact but the human impact may or may not be as large as we think, in fact, it may slightly be impacted/ascertained by erroneous correlations.

Clothahump No problem. Glad someone else found it enlightening, his view is really thought out and shies away from the typical "bad troll is bad" attitude and gives a great argument.

My apologies for the long read here as well as the linked article. I thought the Printer friendly page would be easier for all to read, less advertisement and all.

Last edited by anomalous1; 01-15-2018 at 09:40 PM.
  #44  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:42 PM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher View Post
Rowe regularly replies to cranks on his Facebook page, and this is just one more. I still like what he does in regards to the Trades through his charity, and his letter to Eagle Scouts is one of my favorites.

http://mikerowe.com/about-mike/eagle-scout-letter/
Thanks for sharing this!
  #45  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:45 PM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I like Mike Rowe. Whatever his politics, he seems like a good guy.

You, however, are a fucking imbecile.
Hey, I have an opinion just as you do. Lay off with the insults, please. By acting/typing that way you are becoming no better than your interpretation of me. Thanks.
  #46  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:49 PM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
And the dumb fart puts it in the pit! It's like the jokes writing themselves.
I placed it here, because I had the foresight to know that it would get nasty, because he (Rowe) is conservative and this is a left leaning board, with very few of us conservative types. Easy on the insults, even though it is mildly amusing imaging someone calling another a 'fart'.
  #47  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:51 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Also, GIGObuster, I thank you again for your well thought out rebuttal, this is what debate is supposed to be. I do not think he is outright denying science or the scientific method though, more of a "keep your eyes open, you never know" attitude.
Well, that was for starters, I have to let you know that just by plenty of past experience I had before, that many of the recent "heroes" of the conservatives that seem to support them about their climate change denials are not so heroic.

There are many examples of right wing sources misunderstanding or just plain twisting around what the scientists were saying.

https://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31...s-and-climate/
Quote:
Recently, experiments were undertaken by Dr. Kirkby (interviewed above) at the European Atom smasher facility, – CERN – to learn more about the particle interactions that might validate this theory. The publication of his recent paper on the results has been bouncing around in the denialosphere as yet another “final nail in the coffin of man-caused global warming”.

Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much.

From the Editor’s summary in Nature:
Even with the large enhancements in rate caused by ammonia and ions, they conclude that atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary layer nucleation.

There are more questions to answer.
If cosmic rays have an effect on climate, we should expect that, given the unequivocal warming of the last 40 years, there should be a corresponding trend in cosmic rays. And we don’t see one.

Moreover, solar experts tell us, the sun has been in an extended minimum for several years now.

Since we are in an extended solar minimum, that recent work suggests may get even deeper and longer, the cosmic ray idea would predict —

low solar activity –>
lower solar magnetic fields –>
more influx of cosmic rays –>
more ionizing of atmosphere –>
more cloud nuclei –>
more clouds –>
greater reflectivity –>
lower temps for the last few years, and more cooling to come.

There’s a problem with this idea. We are not observing such a cooling.
Of course in the example of the OP, I think that there is a lot of straw grasping from the likes of The Daily Caller and The Federalist papers. A nice narrator of science shows is not really a go to guy for the ones that want to pretend that they know about it, or misunderstand what a popularizer of science is about, and so they mislead a lot of their viewers or readers.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-15-2018 at 09:53 PM.
  #48  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:06 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,624
And now you know why it is so frustrating for the political right, in reality is not only the left but even scientists who are/were conservative who find it really frustrating to deal with the current ignorant GOP crop and media.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS334109598520120222
Quote:
GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change
It is no wonder that sources like The Daily Caller and The Federalist have to reach for the "bottom of the science barrel" and "improve" on what a narrator of a science show is saying. Who, as far as I know, may be conservative but not so much of a climate change denier as the right wing media wants it.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-15-2018 at 10:08 PM.
  #49  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:58 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 13,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
I don't get it. He was defending science and education.
He seemed to be very calm and polite. So where's the part that s supposed to piss us off?
  #50  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:59 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 13,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I like Mike Rowe. Whatever his politics, he seems like a good guy.

You, however, are a fucking imbecile.
And this too. LOL
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017