I'm still thinking about this. I think there are free thinkers, people like me, who seek for truth and facts first, and are scientifically oriented, and then there are people that are values-oriented, that look at reality through their ideology, to the points where their percepts are distorted by it. I may be very libertarian, but I will never ever spread falsehoods out of mental laziness and willfull misrepresentation.
The reality that sea level rise isn't accelerating? Or that southern sea ice is increasing? That hurricane activity is at record lows? Or that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (and slight cooling since 2000) despite climate models predictions of an escalating rise? Or that agricultural output keeps increasing each year, despite claims of desertification? How about the reality that, even today, more than 6X as many people die each year from cold as heat?
It's funny how many of these people who are wilfully blind to the demonstrable facts of climate change often believe with hall thier hearts that there is a shadowy NWO conspiracy to 'take away our freedom'. If only stupidity was a viable clean energy source...
I stopped watching after 1 minute. I don't know much about the science, but you are reading an article written by AP about a study paid for by AP.
I really don't think think that this is an unbiased source on the issue. AP, like any major media network, but possibly much more so, receives major benefits in deals with states all over the world, as they are granted deals to broadcast information that different states release, often they have deals of exclusivity about reporting certain material.
Well, I respect your POV, it is just totally not mine, for it is based on a conspirational mindset, in other words, there is a trust issue, aka, an attitude issue towards a particular news source where you simply do not assign credibility out of a web of free associations. In practice, you believe AP to be a corrupt organization fabricating news pieces. I simply am not in sync with the conspirationalist worldview and I feel no inclination to question AP's credibility,
specifically because I simply could not establish such an accusation as true or false. I am a disciple of the scientific method. I a totally open to reassessing my trust regarding AP if the case against AP is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Any other way, I regard it as malicious innuendo and conspirationalist propaganda/disinformation.
In other words, I believe in things likely to be true, and I assess the likeliness of something being true by how consensual and peer reviewed the theory being analysed is. I do not believe in something because Alex Jones or any other "journalist" simply states it. And being in bed with the state is not an evidence of corruption in one's mission to inform the public, because you can be taking advantage of the state system without compromising your contents. To say otherwise, proof is needed.
Giving raw, unlabeled data to statisticians is a good way to do a "blind" or even "double blind" (if raw data from other sources is included as a control) check on climate scientists' results.
I'll never understand how some people can just ignore reality.
AsexualAtheist 2 years ago
I'm still thinking about this. I think there are free thinkers, people like me, who seek for truth and facts first, and are scientifically oriented, and then there are people that are values-oriented, that look at reality through their ideology, to the points where their percepts are distorted by it. I may be very libertarian, but I will never ever spread falsehoods out of mental laziness and willfull misrepresentation.
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
In other words, my libertarianism must adapt to reality and not the other way around. :)
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
@Asexual,
The reality that sea level rise isn't accelerating? Or that southern sea ice is increasing? That hurricane activity is at record lows? Or that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (and slight cooling since 2000) despite climate models predictions of an escalating rise? Or that agricultural output keeps increasing each year, despite claims of desertification? How about the reality that, even today, more than 6X as many people die each year from cold as heat?
ttowntom 1 year ago
It's funny how many of these people who are wilfully blind to the demonstrable facts of climate change often believe with hall thier hearts that there is a shadowy NWO conspiracy to 'take away our freedom'. If only stupidity was a viable clean energy source...
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
LOL!!!! Nice PUN :)
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
Always inspiring to listen to.
AmazingAnarchist 2 years ago
I stopped watching after 1 minute. I don't know much about the science, but you are reading an article written by AP about a study paid for by AP.
I really don't think think that this is an unbiased source on the issue. AP, like any major media network, but possibly much more so, receives major benefits in deals with states all over the world, as they are granted deals to broadcast information that different states release, often they have deals of exclusivity about reporting certain material.
zuiprax 2 years ago
Well, I respect your POV, it is just totally not mine, for it is based on a conspirational mindset, in other words, there is a trust issue, aka, an attitude issue towards a particular news source where you simply do not assign credibility out of a web of free associations. In practice, you believe AP to be a corrupt organization fabricating news pieces. I simply am not in sync with the conspirationalist worldview and I feel no inclination to question AP's credibility,
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
specifically because I simply could not establish such an accusation as true or false. I am a disciple of the scientific method. I a totally open to reassessing my trust regarding AP if the case against AP is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Any other way, I regard it as malicious innuendo and conspirationalist propaganda/disinformation.
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
In other words, I believe in things likely to be true, and I assess the likeliness of something being true by how consensual and peer reviewed the theory being analysed is. I do not believe in something because Alex Jones or any other "journalist" simply states it. And being in bed with the state is not an evidence of corruption in one's mission to inform the public, because you can be taking advantage of the state system without compromising your contents. To say otherwise, proof is needed.
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
@zuiprax I concur
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
*****
theracemixer 2 years ago
Giving raw, unlabeled data to statisticians is a good way to do a "blind" or even "double blind" (if raw data from other sources is included as a control) check on climate scientists' results.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago 2
Fucking dumbasses...... These people would deny gravity if it was in their financial interest.
mexicoman101 2 years ago