Skip to main content

View Diary: BBC Will No Longer Give Climate Change Deniers A Platform (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Lenny Flank - To be clear, the general AGW theory (10+ / 0-)

    is pretty much settled science, although there are a lot of unresolved questions about specifics.
       "Anti-nuke" people are not anti-science. They aren't saying that nuclear reactors don't work. They're arguing about their desirability and feasibility for generating electricity.
       GMOs raise a whole host of questions about environmental issues involved in massive application of herbicides, effects of BT plants on beneficial insects, etc. So anti-GMO is not anti-science.
       Cellphones and cancer? Probably not. But I've followed the progress of medical science on other issues, so I wouldn't rule out a sudden reversal of current medical opinion.
       Anti-vaxxers are clearly wrong about vaccinations and autism. But vaccines are not 100% safe. However the tiny risk is far outweighed by the risks from disease. I think pubic discussion of relative risks would actually be beneficial.
       "Alternative medicine" is actively dangerous (ask Steve Jobs.)
       The artificial controversy about climate change features a veritable zoo of cranks and crackpots who are given credibility by media. But exclusion of these professional liars from media should not be an excuse to exclude critics in other scientiffic/political controversies.

    •  I am both anti-nuke and anti-GMO (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sir Roderick, Naniboujou, G2geek, kfunk937

      But most of the "scientific arguments" made by both are just evidence-free CT crackpottery, mostly based on a rigid anti-corporate ideology (and I have no love for corporations, either).

      Making "science" arguments that are not only simply wrong and incorrect, but are fundamentally anti-science (all the "science is a corporate conspiracy !!" nuttery) doesn't help us. At all.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:49:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  pot, kettle, reactor pressure vessel... (0+ / 0-)

        You're anti-nuke?  After calling me a crackpot for bringing up two people I know who both got brain cancer next to where they held their cellphones?

        "Lions & tigers & bears, oh my!"

        By all means let us know why you're anti-nuke, and what exactly you propose for baseload power in areas that don't have adequate wind or sunlight.

        BTW, I've spent a couple of years doing design eng. work on @ 300 MW of utility-scale wind, so my positions on energy are not idle speculation.

        Nobody ever got sick or died from ditching their cellphone.

        Plenty of people have gotten sick and died from failure to vaccinate or failure of herd immunity due to anti-vaxxers.

        And the total number of deaths from the entire nuclear power fuel cycle including reactor accidents, in the entire history of nuclear power, is less than 20% of the number of deaths that occur each year in the USA alone, due to respiratory illnesses caused by burning coal.  

        Word to the wise:  When making a case against a particular item as being dangerous pseudoscience, it's best to not bring in a laundry-list of other items that vary from contested science to fringe science to overt pseudoscience, because lumping all of those together will only result in further arguements about the status of each.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:44:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (0+ / 0-)

          I was fighting both nukes and Monsanto, as a Greenpeace organizer, since before most of the people here at DKos were still pooping their diapers.

          And yes, people who think cellphones cause brain cancer, are crackpots.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:04:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ooh, we're going to have some.... (0+ / 0-)

            .... interesting arguements around here in the years to come, someone needs to set up a popcorn franchise;-)

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:22:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no we won't (0+ / 0-)

              Arguing with crackpots is a waste of time.

              All we can do is laugh at them.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:49:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A difference (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Gwennedd, G2geek

                As you rightly point out, science is evidence based. Many of the CTs are based on a mis-understanding of risk. Thus the risk of serious injury from vaccinations is negligible but side-effects, including deaths, can occur in a very small number of cases. Nobody can therefore guarantee 100% that any particular injection is totally safe. That statement of scientific fact then gives the anti-vaxers carte blanche to invent all sorts of conspiracies and false links like the one to autism.

                There are however other fields where no proof of harm can result in action being taken. In many cases there is a difference between the position in the USA of "ban if shown to cause harm" to the EU one of precautionary bans if it cannot be shown to be 100% safe. The example I would give here is the EU ban on certain neonicotinide insecticides because of some evidence that they are implicated in the loss of bees. Similarly GMOs are much more controlled because of the "precautionary principle". Again though, this is based on the scientific method but placing more emphasis on a lower level of evidence of harm.

                "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

                by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:46:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  alas, anti-science CT nuttery is still (0+ / 0-)

                  anti-science CT nuttery, no matter how one tries to dress it up.

                  And we are  no more invulnerable to it than the rightwingnuts are. The crackpots on the left pick and choose the science they want to believe, just like the rightwingers do.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:49:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so let's see... anti-nuclear... hmm... n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                    by G2geek on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:33:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you should maybe read my comments before (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      G2geek

                      making yourself look like such a moran.

                      You might even have seen this:

                      But my reasons for opposing GMOs and nukes are economic, social, and political, not scientific. Most of the "scientific" arguments against them are flat-out horseshit that shouldn't fool a tenth-grader. The anti-corporate ideologues believe it because they WANT to believe it, even though it's crap.
                      But then, you do have the habit of seeing what you want to see, instead of what's actually there.  (shrug)

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:41:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, that's fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

                        Economic, social, and political.

                        But as for seeing what one wants to see, I'd seriously suggest looking at pots & kettles.

                        "Moran" is ad-hom, minus two points, next round.

                        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                        by G2geek on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 11:34:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  ps--since I have no interest in a personal (0+ / 0-)

                      pissing contest, I won't even bring up the "cellphones cause brain cancer !!!" crackpottery.

                      I'll just laugh at it to myself.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:43:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  just so's you know... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... you're arguing with someone for whom everything is black or white with no shades of gray, and who is always right.

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:38:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  wow, you really seem to want to make this personal (0+ / 0-)

                    Bug up your ass, or something?

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:51:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  or are you STILL just pissed because I told you (0+ / 0-)

                      that your brain isn't any better than anyone else's, and you're not a special snowflake--you have six points just like all the billions of others?

                      Sorry if I hurt your fee fee's. You'll get over it. (shrug)

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:53:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  now now, let's at least have a sense of humor. (0+ / 0-)

                        I see you penned your "moran" comment ten minutes before your "bug up the arse" comment, so as far as "personal" is concerned, pots & kettles apply here as well.

                        Really.  I thought we might make a pretty good comedy tag-team around here, or at least a offer bit of humorous relief in the middle of otherwise-serious topics.  Maybe not.  Either way works for me.

                        The fact that we agree wholeheartedly about a range of things, and disagree sharply about a few others, should at least be good for some clever feistyness to perk up occasional threads.

                        Gotta go, need to put my snowflakes back in the freezer before they melt;-)  

                        Ta ta....

                        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                        by G2geek on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 11:44:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  A neat illustration here.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....of what the diarist may have meant.

      GMOs raise a whole host of questions about environmental issues involved in massive application of herbicides, effects of BT plants on beneficial insects, etc. So anti-GMO is not anti-science.
      This is a good example of the logical fallacy called composition. The examples given are not relevant to GMO as a whole. They are relevant to a discussion of the GMO-related practices of a certain company that has worked hard to earn its notoriety.

      This is the landscape that we understand, -
      And till the principle of things takes root,
      How shall examples move us from our calm?

      (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

      by sagesource on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:59:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they are also scientific baloney, since no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kfunk937

        scientific study has demonstrated any harm of any sort to anything from GMO genes.  None. Not a one.

        But my reasons for opposing GMOs and nukes are economic, social, and political, not scientific. Most of the "scientific" arguments against them are flat-out horseshit that shouldn't fool a tenth-grader. The anti-corporate ideologues believe it because they WANT to believe it, even though it's crap.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:58:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  flies (3+ / 0-)

          honey etcetc

          not to wave the Finger of Nanny but name calling is not helpful, here on dk especially, you're a good teacher and know tons of stuff, I know this drives you nuts, but...well..

          anyway I thought  you did a good job not responding with a pyefight in a recent bucket when someone rare there nagged you about something or other, it made me grumpy enough to leave..:>

          This machine kills Fascists.

          by KenBee on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:14:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  alas, I have been fighting creationists and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            anti-science kooks since 1982. There are times when my patience with them reaches zero.  ;)

            To be fair, most of them are harmless cranks--nobody listens to them anyway, and the only real damage they do is separating the gullible from their money. But a few of them--such as the anti-vaxxers, KILL people with their nuttiness. I have no mercy for them.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:54:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site