The Baloney Detection Kit

[Excrement_Cranium]

All hail, mighty skeptical science - apply liberally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=player_embedded#

[RACKnRAIL]

Damn good video! A must see!! Two thumbs up!!

[El Comandante]

Ahh... religion and politics. Both promote fallacies of logic and wild unsupported rhetoric.. . . Scientific truth will never be universally embraced because people simply can't handle the truth. Everyone wants to hear what they believe is true . . . prophets and politicians are good at that.

[Signa]

I wasn't a fan of the "meaning of life" comment he had at the end. If anything, science kinda defeats that. Every person can come up with a different answer to that question, and science has no business trying to dictate that. If it did, you WILL have people fighting over the answer to the ultimate question, just like in Southpark's Go God, Go.

Just like religion, science will invoke disagreements with itself, and fighting will ensue. People LOVE to fight. The attractive thing about science is that none of the retards have embraced it, so it looks all awesome and mighty because only smart people are using it. Just wait until the retards that are associating with religion manage to move over to science. It will be bloody hell because no one will be able to agree on the definition of simple logic.

[mountain_rage]

The meaning of life is that there is no meaning to life, life is life itself. So go on living.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I wasn't a fan of the "meaning of life" comment he had at the end. If anything, science kinda defeats that. Every person can come up with a different answer to that question, and science has no business trying to dictate that. If it did, you WILL have people fighting over the answer to the ultimate question, just like in Southpark's Go God, Go.

Just like religion, science will invoke disagreements with itself, and fighting will ensue. People LOVE to fight. The attractive thing about science is that none of the retards have embraced it, so it looks all awesome and mighty because only smart people are using it. Just wait until the retards that are associating with religion manage to move over to science. It will be bloody hell because no one will be able to agree on the definition of simple logic.


I'll have a post on that here after I respond.

What you are talking about is addressed - personal bias. It's discussed shortly when he talks about Global Warming and the "left wing, right wing, and no wing" scientists. Bias is one of the first things you must address in scientific discussion.

Not to say that there isn't bias of consensus, I had a psych professor that is having a thesis held back do to bias of consensus - her field is animal behavioral psychology and the subject is on primates and language.

However, the "upside" to good science is fallibility. Protest all you want, but when your shit gets disproven, it's disproven.

[w31n3r]

i thought that was an excellent 14 minute lesson in common sense. every point they made seemed so logical, so obvious. yet i think if everyone were as rational, the world would be a dull and dry place to live in.

[mountain_rage]

Sadly this video is useless since the people that need the advice are not the ones likely to view it. Even if they do I find those that live in the fantasy of poor logic tend to have a world view that prevents them from thinking logically since its a threat to their thought process.

What is really needed is a class on logic and critical thinking in schools as a critical subject matter as important as math and science. Sadly I doubt we will be seeing this in the near future since as soon as its introduced you will have a bunch of pissed off parents wanting it to be removed from the curriculum since their children are calling them out on their ignorance.

[Signa]

Sadly this video is useless since the people that need the advice are not the ones likely to view it. Even if they do I find those that live in the fantasy of poor logic tend to have a world view that prevents them from thinking logically since its a threat to their thought process.

What is really needed is a class on logic and critical thinking in schools as a critical subject matter as important as math and science. Sadly I doubt we will be seeing this in the near future since as soon as its introduced you will have a bunch of pissed off parents wanting it to be removed from the curriculum since their children are calling them out on their ignorance.
I bet it could be pulled off as long as no real-world situations are used as examples. You could teach and have the kids memorize the 10 rules, and then make up hypothetical situations for kids to work on. Give them statements and then instruct them to research and find out for themselves whether or not it is true. Make fictional characters with back grounds and allegiances to say them. You could just have one person, or group of people make a curriculum to pass out to all the schools so that it's not up to the teachers to be creative (you know most aren't).

[don webb]

.

IMO this is just more “Global Warming Baloney “

I like baloney “fried and in a grilled cheese sandwich” but this has to be the cheapest brand around.

The remarks in the beginning of the video that only data and errors slanting in the direction of skepticism over global warming are un-reliable insinuate that the data and errors slanting in the other direction are reliable. “The seed has been planted”

The seed having been planted the video continues, although going into different “subjects” throwing around quotes such as “current prevailing theory” it starts and ends with this global warming baloney hoping to convince the viewer through out the video this is fact.

Planting the thought in ones mind of global warming then going into this gibberish about other “scientific facts” on other subjects as if they are related may be very convincing if you’re a believer, they’re already hooked into this scam.

If he’s trying to convince say a skeptic, it’s a waste of good video and my 14 minutes.

In general the thought is good, but this video is pure propaganda from the global warming crowd.

.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

.

IMO this is just more “Global Warming Baloney “

I like baloney “fried and in a grilled cheese sandwich” but this has to be the cheapest brand around.

The remarks in the beginning of the video that only data and errors slanting in the direction of skepticism over global warming are un-reliable
.

That was not what was said. What Shermer said was that global warming skeptics always pick and choose data which slants towards their particular beliefs.

This is undeniably true. Global warming skeptics constantly snatch at any scrap of data which seems to support their pet belief (it was colder than usual in ungobungo today) while ignoring the mass of peer reviewed scientific data which supports AGW theory.

[mountain_rage]

.

IMO this is just more “Global Warming Baloney “

I like baloney “fried and in a grilled cheese sandwich” but this has to be the cheapest brand around.

The remarks in the beginning of the video that only data and errors slanting in the direction of skepticism over global warming are un-reliable insinuate that the data and errors slanting in the other direction are reliable. “The seed has been planted”

The seed having been planted the video continues, although going into different “subjects” throwing around quotes such as “current prevailing theory” it starts and ends with this global warming baloney hoping to convince the viewer through out the video this is fact.

Planting the thought in ones mind of global warming then going into this gibberish about other “scientific facts” on other subjects as if they are related may be very convincing if you’re a believer, they’re already hooked into this scam.

If he’s trying to convince say a skeptic, it’s a waste of good video and my 14 minutes.

In general the thought is good, but this video is pure propaganda from the global warming crowd.

.

Thanks, I will add you to my the list of people that corroborate my previous assertion.

[Signa]

Thanks, I will add you to my the list of people that corroborate my previous assertion.
Ohhh BUUUUUURN!!!

[don webb]

That was not what was said. What Shermer said was that global warming skeptics always pick and choose data which slants towards their particular beliefs.

This is undeniably true. Global warming skeptics constantly snatch at any scrap of data which seems to support their pet belief (it was colder than usual in ungobungo today) while ignoring the mass of peer reviewed scientific data which supports AGW theory.



Well excuuuuuuuuuuze me, but that "was" said at the 2:00 mark on the video, Point #1.

In a video titled “Baloney Detection Kit,”and the remark being made in Baloney Point #1 and being it runs almost 15 minutes long that’s close enough to call it the beginning for me if that is your complaint.

P.S. This was my opinion of the video, thanks for yours.:kiss:

.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Well excuuuuuuuuuuze me, but that "was" said at the 2:00 mark on the video, Point #1.

In a video titled “Baloney Detection Kit,”and the remark being made in Baloney Point #1 and being it runs almost 15 minutes long that’s close enough to call it the beginning for me if that is your complaint.

P.S. This was my opinion of the video, thanks for yours.:kiss:

.



You are entitled to an opinion on global warming, so long as it is an educated one, but you are not entitled to an opinion on the exact meaning of the words that come out of Michael Shermer's mouth, so to remove any doubt over who is mistaken I have provided the exact quotation of the remark you refer to at 2:00.

"Like the global warming skeptics for example, will often pick and choose data that always slants toward that particular belief, their errors always slant towards skepticism about global warming and that tells us something else is going on"

This is not the same thing as saying "that only data and errors slanting in the direction of skepticism over global warming are un-reliable" and it certainly isn't implying that errors slanting in the other direction are reliable (which isn't even a coherent statement)

Come on don, we know you are dumb but surely a basic comprehension of the English language is not beyond you.

[YWD67]

What I love are the experts the deniers prop up as rebuttal.
"Dr. I. C. Shit a proffesor at the University of Bort, states there is no global warming acording to his studies."

Well hell he is a docotor and a proffesor so he has to be right in his conclusions, right?
Wrong, checking credentials on many of the experts on the deniers side can be a riot.

Dr. I. C. Shit is a proffesor at Bort alright and he teaches a class in animal husbandry.
He has no background at all that would allow him to make a valued educated judgement on the climate.

Even though the above mentioned example is a joke to make a point, it is not that far from the truth.

One so called expert doctor on global warming was a damn pulmanologist.

The experts they do quote that have a credible background in the correct science are either employed or have a vested interest in the energy industry.

A certain Senator from Oklahoma is very fond of quoting scientific studies that are produced by oil industry bankrolled think tanks.

[mountain_rage]

What I love are the experts the deniers prop up as rebuttal.
"Dr. I. C. Shit a proffesor at the University of Bort, states there is no global warming acording to his studies."

Well hell he is a docotor and a proffesor so he has to be right in his conclusions, right?
Wrong, checking credentials on many of the experts on the deniers side can be a riot.

Dr. I. C. Shit is a proffesor at Bort alright and he teaches a class in animal husbandry.
He has no background at all that would allow him to make a valued educated judgement on the climate.

Even though the above mentioned example is a joke to make a point, it is not that far from the truth.

One so called expert doctor on global warming was a damn pulmanologist.

The experts they do quote that have a credible background in the correct science are either employed or have a vested interest in the energy industry.

A certain Senator from Oklahoma is very fond of quoting scientific studies that are produced by oil industry bankrolled think tanks.

Still remember someone on these boards posting a global warming denial video that had a professor from a university in my city. It listed the professor as being from the department of climatology when I knew the university did not have a climatology department. Case in point I called him out on it and he just flapped away some useless defense.

[don webb]

.

This debate can and probably will go on forever. It has been discussed many times here as well as other places with the same out come. As with the comments made above, mine have already been posted and can be found in previous threads.

.

[Signa]

Since we are changing topics so thoroughly, I thought I might add this in:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml

While I don't refute evidence that the globe is warming, I'm highly skeptical that we are doing it. This recent Fark article backs up my position. Unlike a lot of other people though, I'm perfectly willing to listen if some one actually has some convincing evidence to the contrary. I just haven't heard much of the convincing variety.

Penn and Teller even did a recent episode on global warming. Their conclusion was that they just don't know, but there is a huge industry making money off of everyone who is buying into the concept, and businesses that are spending more money to be "green" and passing those expenses to us without any real concrete evidence they are helping.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I'll call Shermer out on one thing: using the wrong language. And I'll thank Don for giving us a proper example of the proper term: cynic.

Skepticism and Cynicism seem the same, until you realize that a cynic will only accepts information that holds to their point, and rejects any information which is against it.

[don webb]

I'll call Shermer out on one thing: using the wrong language. And I'll thank Don for giving us a proper example of the proper term: cynic.

Skepticism and Cynicism seem the same, until you realize that a cynic will only accepts information that holds to their point, and rejects any information which is against it.




I found this interesting little piece I thought fit nicely here, I’ll call it;


Liars, Cheaters and Thieves Oh my......:dance:


Hold off on getting that Toilet Paper made from recycled products. You could be accused of unethical behavior...:shocked:

Psychologists in Canada have revealed new research suggesting that people who become eco-conscious "Green Consumers" are "more likely to steal and lie" than others.

"Buying products that claim to be made with low environmental impact can set up 'moral credentials' in people’s minds that give license to selfish or questionable behavior."

In line with this “Halo” associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products.

However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.

Conserving and preserving the environment is a worthy goal. Unfortunately, the environmental movement was hijacked by extremists and has been subsumed into the climate alarmist idiocy...........:Flush:

So here you have it: People who buy green - who offset their carbon, who purchase greened-up electricity, who put windmills on their roofs etc etc - are the main thieving, lying, holier-than-thou scumbags.

Cheers.........:beerchug:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/greens_are_thieves_and_liars_say_trick_cyclists/


.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I found this interesting little piece I thought fit nicely here, I’ll call it;


Liars, Cheaters and Thieves Oh my......:dance:


Hold off on getting that Toilet Paper made from recycled products. You could be accused of unethical behavior...:shocked:

Psychologists in Canada have revealed new research suggesting that people who become eco-conscious "Green Consumers" are "more likely to steal and lie" than others.

"Buying products that claim to be made with low environmental impact can set up 'moral credentials' in people’s minds that give license to selfish or questionable behavior."

In line with this “Halo” associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products.

However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.

Conserving and preserving the environment is a worthy goal. Unfortunately, the environmental movement was hijacked by extremists and has been subsumed into the climate alarmist idiocy...........:Flush:

So here you have it: People who buy green - who offset their carbon, who purchase greened-up electricity, who put windmills on their roofs etc etc - are the main thieving, lying, holier-than-thou scumbags.

Cheers.........:beerchug:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/greens_are_thieves_and_liars_say_trick_cyclists/


.

It goes very well with the other article on the page: "Nasa moon-bomb strikes rich vein of fruit cake."


Fruit cake, alright.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

Since we are changing topics so thoroughly, I thought I might add this in:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml

After the dust has begun to settle this article is looking like the typical denier hogwash it was always cut out to be. The claims made by McIntyre are looking slightly dubious, see for example the reply (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/) by Briffa. It's interesting to note the calm and deliberate response of Briffa the scientist with the sensationalist cries of "fraud" and "hoax" from the tabloid journalist and non-expert Melanie Phillips.

Next even if McIntyre's claims are true, they do not provide any evidence of "fraud", this is pure wingnut spin. Nor would McIntyre's claims provide any justification for discarding the hockey stick model of temperature growth, as the article states. The Yamal tree ring data is only one small piece of evidence out of many which support the hockey stick model.

For more discussion on this there is an article which references actual peer-reviewed scientific papers here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/)


I'm perfectly willing to listen if some one actually has some convincing evidence to the contrary. I just haven't heard much of the convincing variety.

Where have you looked?



Penn and Teller even did a recent episode on global warming. Their conclusion was that they just don't know, but there is a huge industry making money off of everyone who is buying into the concept, and businesses that are spending more money to be "green" and passing those expenses to us without any real concrete evidence they are helping.

Did the Penn and Teller episode feature a detailed analysis of the latest peer-reviewed scientific evidence? No offence, but a pair of TV personalities are hardly the last word on matters of scientific debate.

[Signa]

Where have you looked?




Did the Penn and Teller episode feature a detailed analysis of the latest peer-reviewed scientific evidence? No offence, but a pair of TV personalities are hardly the last word on matters of scientific debate.
I don't deny I've failed to do some real homework on the issue, so your article is a nice rebuttal to the one I stumbled across.

As far as Penn and Teller goes, I'd like to know if you've even watched the show. The only agenda they have ever had is debunking unprovable claims. I don't like how they use that against religion sometimes (though most frequently, religion deserves the new asshole P&T ripped it), but I'm confidant that their conclusions on the global warming episode are as realistic and balanced as possible given the data they dug up. The fact that they ended the episode by saying that they just don't know if man-made global warming is real is indicative that they did their best. I can't think of any other shows they did where they didn't irrevocably debunk the topic.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

I don't deny I've failed to do some real homework on the issue, so your article is a nice rebuttal to the one I stumbled across.

As far as Penn and Teller goes, I'd like to know if you've even watched the show. The only agenda they have ever had is debunking unprovable claims.

Is this the video you refer to? http://theconservativemonster.com/2009/06/24/penn--teller-global-warming.aspx?ref=rss

Now I didn't watch the whole thing, but did watch enough to get a flavor of the tone of their agenda.

Basically they line up Bjorn Lomborg (a social scientist who has never published a scientific paper on climate change) and some suit from the CATO institute against a bunch of hippies out on a protest. They seem to have utterly missed the point that they are addressing a scientific question so they ought to reference some actual scientific work and interview some actual climate scientists.

They also resurrect the old "scientists predicted global cooling in the seventies" story. Really, 30 seconds on google could have debunked this denialist canard. But then it seems that presenting the facts wasn't as important to them as perpetuating the stereotype that all environmentalists are gullible hippies.

EDIT: the following website has a point by point rebuttal which has a couple of the same criticisms.

http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/bullsheit.html

[YWD67]

presenting the facts wasn't as important to them as perpetuating the stereotype

Damn grab, I figured you would have discovered by now that conservatives do not like to deal in facts.

To them facts do nothing but cloud the issue with reality.

[Signa]

Is this the video you refer to? http://theconservativemonster.com/2009/06/24/penn--teller-global-warming.aspx?ref=rss

Nope. This is the one I was referring to.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1325805851224851246#



EDIT: the following website has a point by point rebuttal which has a couple of the same criticisms.

http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/bullsheit.htmlAnother nice find. It debunks a few arguments I was taking from the above episode.

Edit: I just watched the episode again and was entertained by it as much as before. I did notice though that they never did call BS on global warming itself, and they ended up acknowledging that as well. I still would recommend watching it yourself Grab, just so you can point out the inaccuracies to me. That link you posted did mention something interesting though: Penn does have a private stake in a company that would be affected by global warming issues. I don't know how that affects the episode, if at all, but it does raise a concern regardless.

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

I watched 10 minutes or so. As far as I can see the show had nothing to do with global warming, and seemed to be attacking Al Gore and carbon credits, which is fine s far as it goes, but doesn't constitute a critique of global warming. I notice they also referenced the same "scientists predicted global warming in the seventies" claptrap.

[Signa]

While I won't argue that it's claptrap, my personal experience does lend it some credence. Here in Washington, anytime we have some extreme weather pattern, it always gets bested by some record that was set in the 50's. Just what the hell happened back in the fifties that competed with a half of a century of global warming?

More accurately, the old records were an observation I noticed on my own, and then I heard that claptrap about decades-old global warming theories. Maybe things are just different here in Washington, but it's why I'm still not convinced one way or another. Your data has pushed me to re-evaluate my assumptions though.

[mountain_rage]

While I won't argue that it's claptrap, my personal experience does lend it some credence. Here in Washington, anytime we have some extreme weather pattern, it always gets bested by some record that was set in the 50's. Just what the hell happened back in the fifties that competed with a half of a century of global warming?

More accurately, the old records were an observation I noticed on my own, and then I heard that claptrap about decades-old global warming theories. Maybe things are just different here in Washington, but it's why I'm still not convinced one way or another. Your data has pushed me to re-evaluate my assumptions though.

Think the best way to explain the feasibility of global warming is to do so through the explanation of the carbon cycle.Carbon based gasses are naturally cycled through the environment and reprocessed, as far as we know this cycle should be balanced with carbon in the atmosphere being consumed as fast as it is produced. The theory for global warming is that deforestation, as well as other atmospheric carbon absorption sources have been diluted by human consumption. We have at the same time introduced large sources of dormant carbon sources into the atmosphere. The theory is that this may have tipped the balance of the cycle causing carbon to build up in the atmosphere rather than follow its regular cycle. Even just a little carbon above the limit would lead to a build up of carbon in our atmosphere. This is cause for concern because if we continue along this path, carbon will continue to grow in the atmosphere to the point where we could have run away climate change. Scientist have theorized this carbon limit, and its this limit that climate change measures are attempting to prevent. Even if it did turn out, although its highly unlikely, that climate change isn't occurring, its still good policy to be controlling carbon among other chemicals to ensure that they are being cycled in our environment. Its not the first chemical to be regulated, although it has definitely become the most highly publicized, due mostly from the possible cost associated to it, and the fear mongering surrounding it.

Many people have this distorted view that somehow the planet would adapt and somehow consume back all the carbon. This would be true if vegetation would be allowed to take advantage of the increased carbon and grow at an increased rate allowed by the introduction of a higher carbon concentration. But we control where plants can grow, and arguably prevent the natural recuperation cycle from occurring. In fact, in many cases we are losing more forest everyday due to the economic demands of developing nations.

I know its not totally related to what you are saying, but I find too many people argue the point from the temperature side of things, when that is more of a consequence not the reason. Also it should be noted that you will see very different effects from one region to another, which is why scientist recommend the term climate change rather than global warming, its more indicative of the effect.

[Signa]

Carbon
That much makes sense to me, but I question the supposed limits of the Earth's ability to handle the extra carbon. There are so many factors that will affect it that I don't see how anyone can come up with a good guesstimate. I've been hearing how the ocean is absorbing a lot of carbon, and is starting to become acidic as a result. But what about all the photosynthesizing plankton that can clean that mess up? Even if it's not enough naturally, I'm sure some humans can put some there to fix things.

[mountain_rage]

That much makes sense to me, but I question the supposed limits of the Earth's ability to handle the extra carbon. There are so many factors that will affect it that I don't see how anyone can come up with a good guesstimate. I've been hearing how the ocean is absorbing a lot of carbon, and is starting to become acidic as a result. But what about all the photosynthesizing plankton that can clean that mess up? Even if it's not enough naturally, I'm sure some humans can put some there to fix things.

Its hard to implement measures to clean up carbon when people are protesting having to pay to clean up carbon. My point is we are introducing carbon into our atmosphere, destroying the sources that remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in plant matter, or other forms and preventing the growth of plant life that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere for economic gain. Essentially people keep wanting to say nothing will happen, but if we keep going this way there is no doubt that it will.

[Signa]

Are people protesting? That last P&T episode I linked showed people's willingness to throw money away to help be carbon neutral.

I feel like I'm being entirely overly argumentative in this discussion. I'm not trying to be. I'm trying to take the information I'm being given and pair it with other info that I've heard that complements or refutes things you guys say. Obviously, I don't need confirmation on the bits that coincide with what I already knew.

[Excrement_Cranium]

While I won't argue that it's claptrap, my personal experience does lend it some credence. Here in Washington, anytime we have some extreme weather pattern, it always gets bested by some record that was set in the 50's. Just what the hell happened back in the fifties that competed with a half of a century of global warming?

More accurately, the old records were an observation I noticed on my own, and then I heard that claptrap about decades-old global warming theories. Maybe things are just different here in Washington, but it's why I'm still not convinced one way or another. Your data has pushed me to re-evaluate my assumptions though.


God damn you Western Washingtonian liberal bastards!!!!

(>.<)

Ah... "The floods of '96"