Lets enlighten Necratoid. It is a fun game. Anyone can do it; well except Necratoid.
Another doozy
Now, onto the meat of the matter, your oft returned to mission statement. This thread was made to do two things discuss the Ozone holes and discuss how the MGW movement ate the political movement that was the Ozone Holes lobby of terror.
First and foremost your premise is deeply flawed in its very conception; which is then further compromised by your inability to realize the difference between the media perception of how science works and how science actually works.
Science is not a democratic process. You cannot hold a vote over the sex of a rabbit and then expect your democratic outcome to determine the sex of the rabbit. Science is driven on reproducible evidence that draws conclusions that can be used for prediction. Just like you can always find 10 people to join your cult, you can always find 10 scientists to come out against a theory some of them might even be connected to the apropos scientific field, but that is usually not the case. The Steve Project is the best example extant of this among scientists.
Having said that any theory is subject to revision or outright dismissal if a better theory comes along one that does a better job of explaining things produces more accurate predictions all the while holding up the requirements of the scientific method. In most cases the modification are minor; but occasionally something like Darwins theory of evolution through natural selection a theory which has undergone significant clarification since it was originally published as our fundamental understanding of the natural world increases DNA being a prime example of As Crick said to the barkeep, pour me a double Felix wait a sec Hell, you can even fool some of the people some of the time (cloning in Korea leaps to mind) but in the end the peer review mechanism of science is going to catch the mistake or the outright lie.
Now, just because you havent been hearing about ozone depletion/restoration does not mean that research isnt being done, published, reviewed and communicated within the appropriate journals. It means that you are not paying attention. Youre not alone. I dont follow it terribly closely myself, my interests lie more in evolutionary biology; which is where I spend the lions share of my time on recreational science reading. Global Warming research and publication has been going on for a great deal of time before it surfaced like a breaching whale in your sight. You just were not paying attention.
Now, getting your science news from the mass media is a pretty piss poor exercise. Trying to filter science through a medium that does not particularly understand it is not good. You are far more likely to appreciate fine ale if you get it from the source (the keg) rather than after it has been filtered through a third party (some guy at a urinal). If science is your beverage of choice you have to hit the peer reviewed journals; not the news media. There are some notable exceptions here, including the series produced by Sagan, Dawkins, Burke, etc; but they are unfortunately few and far between.
By the way, I do like the phrase 'ozone hole lobby of terror'. Although you would not know yours from a hole in the ground.
Shayne
Quote:Sure it is - it demonstrates your unwillingness to do even the most rudimentary research. The most comprehensive review of the ballot in the disputed Florida election was done by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago). In a statewide recount it was determined that under all four operational review standards, Gore would have carried the vote. If you have even begun to explore the irregularities around that election then this report immediately comes up. The only way you will not have seen it (or seen reference to it) is if you have not look.
Gore never won a recount regardless of method as far as I know I could get into the machines and chads, but its not useful here.
Another doozy
Quote:So youve gone from evil non-PCP based foam bringing shuttles down to alternatives for the sake of alternatives to maintenance issues? One of your flaccid arguments gets shot down and another one rises like a phoenix (or rather a butterball turkey with a bad leg and a cough - they do not so much rise as plummet). Wouldnt it be nice if the answer was so easy? Far better than the 48 recommendations issued in the latest CRC report to congress; which you obviously didnt read.
Um no... I believe that if its my job to maintain the US's spaceships, then I would maintain the shuttles I'm sick of seeing, 'The shuttle blew up because we didn't do routine maintenance X' every few years. Its not a matter of design flaws that get shuttles, it them not doing required maintenance on them. Which there own reports keep saying after every resent shuttle explosion. They do a great job of keeping up with the latest on the Ozone Layer. But are doing less well on the shuttle maintenance.
Now, onto the meat of the matter, your oft returned to mission statement. This thread was made to do two things discuss the Ozone holes and discuss how the MGW movement ate the political movement that was the Ozone Holes lobby of terror.
First and foremost your premise is deeply flawed in its very conception; which is then further compromised by your inability to realize the difference between the media perception of how science works and how science actually works.
Science is not a democratic process. You cannot hold a vote over the sex of a rabbit and then expect your democratic outcome to determine the sex of the rabbit. Science is driven on reproducible evidence that draws conclusions that can be used for prediction. Just like you can always find 10 people to join your cult, you can always find 10 scientists to come out against a theory some of them might even be connected to the apropos scientific field, but that is usually not the case. The Steve Project is the best example extant of this among scientists.
Having said that any theory is subject to revision or outright dismissal if a better theory comes along one that does a better job of explaining things produces more accurate predictions all the while holding up the requirements of the scientific method. In most cases the modification are minor; but occasionally something like Darwins theory of evolution through natural selection a theory which has undergone significant clarification since it was originally published as our fundamental understanding of the natural world increases DNA being a prime example of As Crick said to the barkeep, pour me a double Felix wait a sec Hell, you can even fool some of the people some of the time (cloning in Korea leaps to mind) but in the end the peer review mechanism of science is going to catch the mistake or the outright lie.
Now, just because you havent been hearing about ozone depletion/restoration does not mean that research isnt being done, published, reviewed and communicated within the appropriate journals. It means that you are not paying attention. Youre not alone. I dont follow it terribly closely myself, my interests lie more in evolutionary biology; which is where I spend the lions share of my time on recreational science reading. Global Warming research and publication has been going on for a great deal of time before it surfaced like a breaching whale in your sight. You just were not paying attention.
Now, getting your science news from the mass media is a pretty piss poor exercise. Trying to filter science through a medium that does not particularly understand it is not good. You are far more likely to appreciate fine ale if you get it from the source (the keg) rather than after it has been filtered through a third party (some guy at a urinal). If science is your beverage of choice you have to hit the peer reviewed journals; not the news media. There are some notable exceptions here, including the series produced by Sagan, Dawkins, Burke, etc; but they are unfortunately few and far between.
By the way, I do like the phrase 'ozone hole lobby of terror'. Although you would not know yours from a hole in the ground.
Shayne