On 04/12/2007, at 12:20 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote: > At 10:07 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote: > >> On 03/12/2007, at 7:51 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote: >> >>> As for climate change, check out this paper that uses the IPCC's own >>> model simulation outputs and compares it to the measured data. >> >> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute >> >> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change >> >> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute >> >> - mark > > So what's your point , Mark?
Merely that consideration of the source is part and parcel of the assessment of new information. The possibility that climate change scientists are a bunch of loons pushing political barrows doesn't disqualify the possibility that Christopher Monckton is also a loon pushing a political barrow. There are enough rebuttals and debunkings available via a quick bout with Google to allow educated readers can draw their own conclusions after consuming a wide array of alternative dissertations and applying their own intelligence to test the veracity of the findings therein. Suffice to say that regardless of whether the skeptics or the boosters are right, you probably could have chosen a better example to illustrate your point. > I searched for the "Center for Media and Democracy" who run > sourcewatch: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy Yeah, I > know it's wikipedia but it's probably at least as reliable as > sourcewatch. Well, now that you've announced that wikipedia is reliable enough to be used to press a debating point, perhaps it's my turn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley The guy is a kook. Anyone who relies on him for persuasion damages their own cause by doing so. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you point at such compromised dickheads as authoritative primary sources. > All this climate change hysteria is about as sensible as burning > witches. Sure, but who's hysterical? I think your reaction in the last few hours has been somewhat disproportionate to the items you were responding to. Is that a workable example of hysteria? It's well known that humans are spectacularly bad at judging and assessing risk, especially when egged on in large groups. People come out with the most outlandish crap and other individuals in positions of authority give them credibility because in a CYA atmosphere it's easier to treat every threat as serious and be wrong than it is to blow-off the dumb ones and potentially be wrong about that instead. Yes, basic judgement skills are sorely lacking faculties, always have been, always will be. But sheeeeit, Mike -- Nonckton's judgement skills are every bit as suspect and lacking as the gestalt hive-mind you so thoroughly denigrate. You're not going to win any converts to rationality by rallying behind his flag. We're talking about a guy who thinks HIV carriers should be locked up in solitary quarantine for the rest of their lives, and who threatens legal action against people who criticise him on the Internet. It's all very well to say that one should attack the message rather than the messenger, but anyone who thinks _this_ messenger has anything worthwhile to say about any subject at all is stressing the boundaries of credulity well beyond their design limits. - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 ----- _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
