I pit people who can't tell the difference between fact and opinion

[tnetennba]

@constanze

And you know of course that objectively the statement is false, because the sky is black and only appears blue due to refraction, right?

Seems tautological to me. Color is a statement about an item’s appearance. If it appears blue, it is blue, because that’s what the statement means.

[emacknight]

@tnetennba

No, what muddies the waters is that a lot of people are lying about the data because any intellectual honest interpretation of the data hurts their bottom line.

That’s right, and it goes both ways. A lot of people have a vested interest in man-made global warming and simply can’t accept any variance or disagreement. They need to lie about data, ignore anything that contradicts them, and seek to marginalize dissenting opinions.

APGW is not a fact, it is currently the best guess based on the available data. Hell, even evolution has points of discussion and debate, but it’s very clearly be best possible conclusion to the data available.

@tnetennba

When it comes to energy the western world is like an alcoholic who’s lost his job, watched his marriage fail, and has declining health. Every one of those things is due to multiple factors, sure, so one can overemphasize the other factors and minimize the role of alcoholism because it allows one to keep drinking. So it is with global warming – so much easier to rationalize the data and try to find other explanations or insist on its unreliability than give up the addiction.

Exactly. The alcoholic has an opinion concerning cause and affect that resulted in his current situation. While his employer and family have a different opinion based on their interpretation of the information available. Most of that is tainted by experiences with other alcoholics, that leads to bias. There is no facts here, even the term alcoholic requires interpretation of data.

You’ll notice that even after this guy sobers up, he may still be an asshole that cheats on his wife, has a genetic abnormality in his liver, and shows up late for work. Alcohol just made him a lot more fun, and gave everyone else an easy excuse to pin on him. His wife assumed it was the alcohol that made him cheat, doctors assumed it was the alcohol that showed declining liver function, and his boss thought he was late because of the booze. All based an opinion on data that caused a bias and ultimately a failed conclusion.

I suppose you were hoping your example would work out better for you, such is the way it goes with opinions. You’ve shown your opinion of alcoholism and how it affects your ability to interpret data.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@tnetennba

…and that one schmuck is part of some sham think tank funded completely by Exxon Mobil.

Exactly.

[tnetennba]

@emacknight

I suppose you were hoping your example would work out better for you, such is the way it goes with opinions. You’ve shown your opinion of alcoholism and how it affects your ability to interpret data.

I suppose my example would have worked out better if you weren’t obdurate.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@tnetennba

I suppose my example would have worked out better if you weren’t obdurate.

Heh - this made me chuckle out loud.

[emacknight]

@tnetennba

I suppose my example would have worked out better if you weren’t obdurate.

No you are!

[emacknight]

@Cat_Whisperer

What also muddies the waters (and this is my personal peeve) is 99 climate scientists say AGW is what is happening, and one schmuck with no credentials will say it isn’t, and both sides are called opinions and given equal weight.

Last point first, you are correct, not all opinions should be given equal weight. Opinion is then required to sort through the list of opinions to figure out which one gets the most weight. But that in and of itself is an opinion.

Which brings us back to your first point, how do we decide which of the 100 scientists are schmucks? How do we sift through credentials to make an opinion of some as better than others? tnetennba’s has shown us exactly what his opinion is of people working for think tanks funded by Exxon Mobile, which lines up pretty well of what he thinks of alcoholics. Lots of easy short cuts used to avoid having to think, oh look, the guy works for Exxon, we can call him a schmuck. If a guy is an alcoholic we can stop thinking and just assume that’s what caused all subsequent events.

All are opinion based statements devoid of facts, and the point of this pitting.

@Cat_Whisperer

I move that we call this the Jenny McCarthy Effect for her disastrous work in the field of childhood disease vaccination (that one uneducated mother’s ill-informed opinion has been given equal weight to damned near every medical doctor and medical researcher in the world).

Although still crazy hot, Jenny McCarthy is a scourge on humanity. But the presence of The JMcC Effect in one instance (vaccination) doesn’t mean that all dissenting views are JMcC’s. Writing off anyone that has differing conclusion for anthropomorphic global warming isn’t any more enlightened than writing off Galileo. Likewise, claiming anyone with a dissenting view is Galileo isn’t any better.

The world is complicated, that’s a fact.

[tnetennba]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[emacknight]

- YouTube

[Omar_Little]

Never mind

Last edited by Omar Little; Tomorrow at 09:38 AM.

[Stoid]

@cosmosdan

That was the claim that politifact called false, mainly because of his use of consistently every, and most. Turns out they are consistently more misinformed, but not the most and not in every poll.

Actually, turns out that Jon Stewart was exactly right.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@emacknight

Last point first, you are correct, not all opinions should be given equal weight. Opinion is then required to sort through the list of opinions to figure out which one gets the most weight. But that in and of itself is an opinion.

Which brings us back to your first point, how do we decide which of the 100 scientists are schmucks? How do we sift through credentials to make an opinion of some as better than others? tnetennba’s has shown us exactly what his opinion is of people working for think tanks funded by Exxon Mobile, which lines up pretty well of what he thinks of alcoholics. Lots of easy short cuts used to avoid having to think, oh look, the guy works for Exxon, we can call him a schmuck. If a guy is an alcoholic we can stop thinking and just assume that’s what caused all subsequent events.

All are opinion based statements devoid of facts, and the point of this pitting.

Although still crazy hot, Jenny McCarthy is a scourge on humanity. But the presence of The JMcC Effect in one instance (vaccination) doesn’t mean that all dissenting views are JMcC’s. Writing off anyone that has differing conclusion for anthropomorphic global warming isn’t any more enlightened than writing off Galileo. Likewise, claiming anyone with a dissenting view is Galileo isn’t any better.

The world is complicated, that’s a fact.

It is partly our responsibility to vet the things we hear and the sources of that information; it is also the responsibility of the media to vet the things they tell us, but they are badly falling down on their job (ratings/sensationalism versus solid, accurate reporting).