I am not a scientist, I am a mathtard, and therefore relegated to the cheering section. But my understanding is that “falsifiability” is one of the very, very best standards, ideally suited to create the single ugly fact that murders a beautiful theory. But it is not the only one, and when the experimental subject is the entire planet, the least likely.
I think its very highly likely that if we keep bumbling along as we have, the result will be famine, pestilence and death. It may be that this is totally wrong, but I am not willing to risk it. Being proven right is a fleeting joy, and has paled over the years by constant repetition.
Naturally; the very moment I saw your third prediction, I accepted it. Why it took you so long to supply that prediction, I’ll never know; you could’ve ended my objections much sooner. (After all, how else could Rhythmdvl have noticed that I kept going on and on about falsifiability? If you – or anyone else – had shown me that third prediction sooner, I’d have had no bugaboo to mention; why the heck did it take so long to get that response? It was like pulling teeth!)
Again, I’m remarkably uninterested in looking at past experiments – or much of anything else – until I’ve heard whether the predictions in question are falsifiable; once I’m satisfied as to that crucial first step, years or decades or even centuries of experiments can of course come in. Not sure why you call that a blind spot.
Again, it’s not so much that I find fault with some poster on a message board; it’s that I’d never heard a falsifiable prediction on the subject – although I’d heard an awful lot of unfalsifiable ones – and you surpass every talking head I’ve seen on television or read in the papers in that you came up with one.
I admittedly would’ve preferred that you’d done so a great deal sooner – and without offering the predictions you’ve since disavowed – but, to my mind, that you finally got it right is the most important part.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense; you disavowed your first prediction by saying you didn’t understand the issue as well then as you later came to, and made the second prediction to – someone other than me altogether. (That said, why bother with humoring if you could, supposedly, skip straight to the third one?)
I’m quite sure they did. Nevertheless, I only ever saw their unfalsifiable predictions in – to coin a phrase – “the mainstream media,” and to this day still haven’t seen a falsifiable one on television or in the papers; were it not for the SDMB in general and you in particular, I’d still be at the mercy of exceedingly poor marketing from the folks who could end my objections with a single sentence.
Leaving aside that it’s not a prediction, I’d certainly support their say-so about “Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions.” We shouldn’t reject that message simply because it comes from Heartland, any more than we should reject a claim about global warming simply because it comes from a nut.
[Darth Vader]
The Dumb is strong with this one
[DV]
That is not the point, that saying is not being rejected. the research already reported that they are lying, their conclusions are shot, their demands to “do your own research” were done already. As usual with you, the work was already done elsewhere and your efforts are just geared to keep your blissful ignorance that way, it is easier to attempt to shot down posters in a forum that checking for the facts.
Oh, good; possibly I misunderstood when you wrote that “they are clearly lying.. Twice. Once for the misleading and lying description of what researchers report and again when they tell you “It’s true, check it for yourself!” Doubling down on their mendacity is possible as they demonstrated.” If neither you nor I have a problem with Heartland’s message about checking for yourself and doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions, then I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing about anything; I didn’t realize all your talk about ‘twice’ and ‘again’ and ‘doubling’ merely referred to the pretty-much-always-implied “It’s true,” and not to the pretty-much-always-sensible “check it for yourself” advice.
I don’t know why you’d falsely claim my efforts are geared to keep ignorance; I “attempt to shot down posters” in an effort, thus far successful, to combat it. Back when, I genuinely didn’t know whether you – or anyone else – could offer a falsifiable prediction about global warming; it took a lot of time and effort on my part, but I eventually got you to supply one, and I thanked you for it, considering my time and effort well-spent.
And while I remain in the dark on other topics – why you were so reluctant to offer that third prediction, and whether you’ll be quicker to mention it the next time someone asks you for a falsifiable prediction – I asked those questions in hopes of learning the answer, and for some reason you eventually obliged.
And as my approach led me to learn the answer – shucks, that dovetails perfectly with how you just said this is “a forum that checking for the facts.” I posted my question in this forum to get an answer, and when one wasn’t forthcoming I kept asking until it finally arrived; what could be more in the forum’s spirit?
Pure trash, as it was already noticed it is really idiotic to act like if all the previous experiments done were not based on the idea that there was and attempt to falsify this before, many times before, the history of those attempted falsifications is ignored and you just pathetically keep up reporting that you are just a jerk asking questions.
And part of that jerkitude is to just get the tread to your walls of text with just dumb arguments, there is nothing new on them, only a repeat of platitudes that only count to be said once.
And this is painfully obvious on the fact that it is still a dumb effort to support what Heartland did.
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
If neither you nor I have a problem with Heartland’s message about checking for yourself and doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions, then I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing about anything
[/QUOTE]
As this is barely related to the subject then I guess we should continue here.
This is also dumb, as the video showed there is no one more mendacious than Lord Monckton, yet there he is lauded at Heartland:
Are you so dense that you are willing to say that there was no check of what he or Heartland has said?
**Coming to your own conclusions is just half the history, what we find when one does the act of checking is that the points Heartland and Monckton report are misrepresentations of what the science says. **
And then the double down appears, when confronted by the evidence that has been found, that is, the clear misrepresentation of what scientists did said, that evidence is avoided:
So no, it is clear that the “check yourself and draw your own conclusions” is turned into a lie by Heartland and his minions, once again the phrase is a proper and commendable one, but the clear implication shows where the lie is: **it is implied that you were given all the facts, they demand that you accept the spin and misrepresentations they offer you. They are not doing that, they are lying. **
As I said, for me the first step is asking whether current predictions are falsifiable. If they are, I move on to considering what’s come before; if they aren’t, I don’t. It took you an extraordinarily long time – and extraordinarily little effort – to satisfy that requirement by supplying a single sentence; had you produced your third prediction sooner, I in turn would’ve considered previous experiments exactly that much sooner.
I’m not following you at all, here. I’m flatly stating that I’ve already received the answer from you; I’m not asking some further questions on the subject, I’m spelling out that you already answered the one I was looking for.
Now, if you ever jettison your third prediction the way you’ve jettisoned the first two – well, then, sure, I’d go back to asking questions in hopes of getting a fourth answer. But that hasn’t happened yet; at the moment, I remain utterly satisfied.
Obviously not. For example, I already said the part about how “I’m remarkably uninterested in looking at past experiments – or much of anything else – until I’ve heard whether the predictions in question are falsifiable; once I’m satisfied as to that crucial first step, years or decades or even centuries of experiments can of course come in.” Your first copy-and-pasted quote up there blithely ignores that instead of addressing it; since my point remains true, I can but repeat it in my reply.
See? Again I need to repeat something, since I said it once and you seem to have missed it completely. You wrote the following:
And I replied by correcting you: “But I don’t doubt that they’re lying; I’ll naturally agree that I don’t see a “check it for yourself” as a lie, but the first part isn’t like the second.” You’re still arguing – for some reason – about a point I’ve already addressed, leaving me able to do little but copy-and-paste my previous reply to.
Make some completely different point and I’ll post something different in reply; so long as you’re raising the same point, the same reply remains relevant.
Meh, just a repeat of the same just like I said, and the saddest thing is that even you acknowledge it, TOWP
And just like Lord Monkton, you avoid dealing with the point by not quoting the rest:
“Coming to your own conclusions is just half the history, what we find when one does the act of checking is that the points Heartland and Monckton report are misrepresentations of what the science says.”
“So no, it is clear that the “check yourself and draw your own conclusions” is turned into a lie by Heartland and his minions, once again the phrase is a proper and commendable one, but the clear implication shows where the lie is: it is implied that you were given all the facts, they demand that you accept the spin and misrepresentations they offer you. They are not doing that, they are lying.”
The fact that you do not see a difference or bother to check is demonstrated by your constant repeat of your platitudes and never reporting back on what you yourself find, the point is not anymore the specific phrase “check yourself and draw your own conclusions” that you are so dense is not my problem; as others noticed, they are just ignoring your walls of text, and you should wonder why.
(actually I do not wonder, it is you who is not bringing anything new to the discussions, but just to repeat platitudes and to avoid dealing with the main subject)
So? Have you even bothered to check for yourself how unreliable Heartland and henchman are? As pointed before, it is your incurious nature why you are not able to to come with something that you yourself did check. Not being willing to do the next step, to indeed “check the source” to see if “It is reliable” is what then give us howlers like your past “We call it climate change now” whereas you do not want to acknowledge it, you are continuing to rely on denialist sites to come even with your toy falsification tool.
Is Lord (not of the house of lords) Monckton sending you threatening notes? For some reason when I mention him moderators give me warnings that have to be withdrawn right away.
Why do you keep saying I don’t see a difference? As I said in reply to you – and then quoted myself saying, and now repeat – “But I don’t doubt that they’re lying; I’ll naturally agree that I don’t see a “check it for yourself” as a lie, but the first part isn’t like the second.”
Yes: that’s the part I find unobjectionable – and you don’t disagree. You took issue with the other part – and I didn’t disagree. What do you think we’re arguing about?
If I had an incurious nature, I wouldn’t have kept asking you. Why did I ask in the first place? Curiosity. Why did I keep asking, when you refused to answer the question? Curiosity. Why did you reluctantly but eventually supply the answer after waiting so danged long? I ask because I’m – well, curious.
While insults are merely tiresome, the false accusations are a different kind of animal. I’ve been applying the tool of falsification in precisely the same manner since before I first visited any websites; it’s been my first step in assessing predictions for decades. Isn’t it yours?
Meh, just confirming what I said, there are already examples of why Heartland and Monckton are lying, deal with them to show all that you are indeed learning.
And, confirming what I said, you naturally refuse to answer questions.
As for me – I’m mystified, GIGO. It would make little sense for me to ask you to “deal with them”, since you’re the one claiming they’re lying and you obviously don’t disagree with your own claim. But it makes equally little sense to ask me, since I don’t disagree with it either! You may as well ask me to defend the divinity of Christ, or explain why I voted for McCain; I can but keep repeating that (a) I’m not a Christian, and (b) I voted for Obama.
Already replied, we are arguing about your obtuseness on seeing that we already did check. To go forward is to indeed ignore, refuse and condemn misleading and lying sources like Heartland.
As if we need more evidence of your obtuseness :).
Once again, we should be already beyond the “check for yourself” What it showed is that Heartland made misleading statements and shows complete disregard for what the scientists say. Not changing their tune after so many years does turn a good saying like “Check it yourself” into a fig leaf, if not a lie; it is indeed like the spam warnings from an uncle reporting in the end that “it is true! Snopes said so” indeed “it is true! Snopes said so” implies something we should all do: check the source. What it is clear is that only an obtuse sod like you would miss that in this context it is just another lie. **Snopes did not said so, and when checking the sources we find that indeed Headland and their minions are lying.
**
And in my initial reply, oft-repeated since, I wrote that I don’t doubt that they’re lying. I remain mystified as to why you act as if we’re disagreeing on that part.
We’re likewise not disagreeing on the other part; as you said,* "the point is not anymore the specific phrase “check yourself and draw your own conclusions”* because, as you put it: “That is not the point, that saying is not being rejected.” So if we’re not disagreeing about one part or the other, what’s your beef?
The fact that nowhere you show that you are checking for the facts elsewhere, you see, there is a method to this madness, I just need to show all that indeed you are just not willing to check good sources, indeed with your latest posts you are admitting that you are not doing the “check for yourself” thing.
Again, context is king, just as Snopes did not said so, when we **do **check the sources we find that indeed Headland and their minions are lying even about the “check for yourself” item, in this context it is made precisely for people like you that demonstrate a total lack of looking for good information, they are counting on their inability to Google or their lack of curiosity.
