Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The evidence that we have had any significant effect on the planet's 
>> climate is far from conclusive.
> 
>   The significant increase in CO2 emissions by humans in the last 100
> years and the significant increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere in
> the last 100 years is certainly a heck of a coincidence.
> 
>   I'm prone to think that's like claiming that the most polluted rivers
> in the world being so polluted is just a coincidence and not caused by
> humans.
> 
Haven't you heard. Just saw today on Faux News (Didn't have a choice 
watching it, I was waiting for a cab in the place that does TV repair 
and they had that channel on) the experts are using "old data", and 
tempuratures have actually gone "down" in the last few years! Sigh... 
This is the problem with idiots. They a) don't comprehend trends, b) 
can't comprehend statistics at all (witness William Dumskis' mangling of 
his own math on the odds of random gene expression), and/or c) don't 
quite get that, even if they where right, such a relatively short 
"shift" isn't natural either, and you know... if the average temp each 
year was 80 degrees, it wouldn't matter *at all* if the opposite ends, 
due to unstable weather, was -150 and +200, in places that used to be 
40->120... Mind, that is only if their data is even right, and not the 
equivalent of the same BS they use for say teen pregnancies, or the 
like. You know, ignore 4 states of conservatives with average first 
pregnancy in the 13-15 range, in favor of a few hundred students, in one 
city, 5,000 miles away, which is also mostly far more liberal, then 
claim that it proved "abstinence", when the program has only run on year 
at the school, but they are using 3 years of "data", which actually 
shows an "increase" after the program started, besides. lol

Ok, so, I don't have specifics on such a case, but it "is" the trend. 
Its never comprehensive data, its always cherry picked to support their 
position, while throwing out contrary data, and its "always" focused on 
groups, places, situations, which they "know" they will get data from 
that supports their position. Its faith based science. Decide what you 
want to be true, pray you find the evidence, then only collect, or 
analyze, the data that supports the original premise. And, when it 
doesn't, they try "real" hard to sweep it under the carpet, insists they 
need more time to get better data, and/or lie about what the data 
actually did say. (Just like abstinence programs, the "war on rugs {yes, 
that's intentional, and about as useful}, or the 'controversy' over 
evolution, which they can't even find enough people to support to have 
more names than the number of scientists named Steve that think they are 
total idiots).

But, truth is, most people are not smart or stupid, and are too busy 
looking for their own survival to worry much about who is and isn't. 
Smart people "usually" don't lead, unless they are a serious hang up 
with "needing" to do so, they let someone else take the lead, with the 
promise that, as long as left alone to be smart, the dummy they partner 
with will reap rewards from it. Unfortunately, the people "most likely" 
to want to lead are the sort that "are" stupid. Because, as a rule, 
proven via studies of people at universities, incompetent people, 
overestimate their own skill, knowledge and abilities, to the point of 
imagining themselves right, even in the face of evidence that they are 
dead wrong. They are more likely to insist that you failed them due to 
jealousy, or hate, or persecution, than due to their inability to pass 
the damn test. Smart, competent, people are **very** aware of their own 
limits, to the extent that they will almost "always" underestimate their 
abilities, ideas, solutions, beliefs and/or imagine false dangers from 
possible results of their actions.

If someone is "sure" of something, they are probably not someone you 
should listen to. The more sure they are, unless they can also provide 
"facts" that are "convincing" to prove their certainty, the more likely 
they are to have no actual clue at all about what they are talking 
about. Its why climate denialists are 100% sure they are right, while 
climate experts are, "reasonably sure, based on the evidence, but we 
could be wrong, so we are collecting more data".

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message