h a l f b a k e r yNumber one on the no-fly list
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Today I saw a link to a "news" website, the headline for
which was "Climotologists (sic) declare start of 30 year
cooling period." Between global warming denialists, anti
vaccination lunatics, and whoever is opposed to
fluoridation, I've had it. Had it I tell you! What I think
society needs
is a nonpartisan public institution to vet
claims about science with a particular focus on issues
affecting human interests directly. I envision some
conglomeration of leading peer reviewed journals, notable
universities and perhaps specific individuals like Nobel
prize winners. This institution would possess the trademark
to a recognizable seal of approval that would indicate to
an otherwise underinformed reader that the claims and
conclusions made in an article were supported by the
overwhelming majority of qualified experts on the subject.
Authors could submit an article for review without fee, and
upon receiving approval would be permitted to include the
seal on their website, newspaper or what have you. A
public awareness campaign would be launched to increase
familiarity with the institution and their seal, and thus the
reader would know that articles bearing the seal were
likely to be correct. This won't keep fools from spouting
their foolishness, but if successful one can always hope
that people would be skeptical of information sources
lacking the seal. Violators of the seal's trademark will be
prosecuted under the DMCA, which is surely cruel and
unusual, but sacrifices must be made. (Upon revocation of
the DMCA, some other horrible punishment must be
devised. After much rejoicing of course.)
Hoover, the talking seal, also the only seal raised by Swallows....
http://www.neaq.org..._exhibit/hoover.php
[not_morrison_rm, Nov 19 2014]
seals are having sex with penguins and eating them afterwards
http://i100.indepen...erwards--ly3jRilyug
absolutely true story [JesusHChrist, Nov 20 2014]
[link]
|
| |
You should reclaim your account. |
|
| |
//global warming denialists// |
|
| |
You see, there's the sort of problem that will crop up.
People who question anthropogenic global warming
are, in some cases, bona fide climatologists. The
phrase "global warming denialists" (or the more
common "deniers") was intentionally modelled on the
phrase "holocaust denier" in order to make skeptics
look like insane or barbaric people. |
|
| |
So, even in a reasoned proposal to police "scientific"
claims in the popular press, a very un-scientific
phrase appears. |
|
| |
The mention of Nobel Prize winners and qualified experts
brings to mind a list of bad guys and light weights who,
through political correctness/ connectedness have been
given
that honor and their inclusion would greatly diminish the
status of the proposed seal. If you could disinclude those
guys it might mean more.
Better to say "Supported by more Moms than any other." |
|
| |
//a recognizable seal of approval |
|
| |
The fairly serious problem, and forgive me if I speak bluntly and non-pc... The problem is, they all look the same. |
|
| |
So, it might be better to get a seal with some unique-ish talent, like Salty, which could apparently mimic a few words. The same problem arises with phocoenidae, but they are more fit for the porpoise. |
|
| |
I'm not eve going to mention them squabbling over who really killed Bin Laden. |
|
| |
I volunteer with that aquarium. What are the odds
of that? |
|
| |
Max, and I'm not sure if this is respect or not, but with all due respect, yours is the only nominally-credible voice I've heard coming from that camp of otherwise backwards, conspiracy-minded, pyramid-worshipping, tinfoil hat-wearing Blaze-readers. It's not favorable company you keep. Even Sturton doesn't go near them anymore. |
|
| |
As for the seal, it had better be done with some kind of high-tech non-counterfeitable technology. Like grandma's meatloaf recipe perhaps... |
|
| |
// People who question anthropogenic global warming
are, in some cases, bona fide climatologists.// |
|
| |
While this is true, the percentage is extremely small, and
they do so in ways that are actually working with
variations on the existing model that show otherwise. |
|
| |
The vast majority of APGW opponents ignore the science
and models and simply deny the possibility without
regards to the science or the simple fact that the earth is
actually warming in contrast to known long term climate
cycles. Calling these individuals denialists is not out of
keeping with the intent of the term. |
|
| |
This is a half measure. There's no need for articles at all.
Cut out the middleman. The Institute issues decrees and
anyone violating them risks running afoul of newly enacted
laws aimed to preserve public order. The Institute could
even be given the power to run tribunals to prosecute the
offenders. |
|
| |
//they all look the same.// |
|
| |
Imagine your house is on fire, and your neighbors
separating into two groups: one says it's not on fire, and
the other says it's your fault. |
|
| |
Neither side has the slightest interest in helping to cope
with a burning house. |
|
| |
The easiest way to identify idiots in this debate is not by
which side they're on; it's by the fact that they're in the
debate. |
|
| |
//yours is the only nominally-credible voice I've
heard coming from that camp of otherwise
backwards, conspiracy-minded, pyramid-worshipping,
tinfoil hat-wearing Blaze-readers// |
|
| |
I deeply resent its being implied that I'm credible. |
|
| |
Howevertheless, I would make two points in reply. (1)
There are a fair number of perfectly reasonable and
intelligent climatologists (and physicists and others)
who question global warming. In general, it is in
their own best interests to keep quiet about this, and
in general they do. If this leaves only the fruits and
nuts on the "no" side, that's a pity. (B) Regardless of
the weight of
consensus on either side, it is not helpful to label
"the other side" with a term that puts them on a par
with holocaust deniers. |
|
| |
Anyway, we're at risk of launching into a debate on
climate change, which will probably get us nowhere. |
|
| |
Oh it'll get us somewhere. That much further along towards heat-death. |
|
| |
If it helps, I could be labeled a conspiracy-theorist-denier. |
|
| |
I'll be worried about climate change when we burn enough
carbon to appreciably change the atmospheric oxygen
concentration. |
|
| |
Commenting on the idea, however, forget the separate
panel. Just make it so the scientist or journal quoted in the
article can choose to place their seal on the article,
indicating it accurately reports what their original did. |
|
| |
No "who decides" issue, or possibility of political slant of
panel appointees, just "yup, that's what I said", or "nope,
not even close". |
|
| |
// "yup, that's what I said", or "nope, not even
close" // |
|
| |
Hey that could apply to more than just scientists...
What would happen if it became standard practice
for journalists to have their articles vetted by the
subject of the article before being published? |
|
| |
We would all get our news 36 hours late? |
|
| |
Maybe, but most articles can be read in a couple
minutes. If the article is correct, the person can
verify it and click okay in under half an hour. Of
course if there are errors, it will take time to look
into those, but with that kind of feedback,
reporters might learn to get it right the first time.
Also, if the subject isn't responding fast enough,
the news agency can publish anyway, but without
the logo. |
|
| |
The endorsement would need to indicate that the
article is basically correct, not 100% correct. The
reviewer isn't expected to double-check every
decimal point. Just ensure that the facts weren't
completely twisted or misunderstood. Anyone
who needs to know the exact details for sure
should go to the source. |
|
| |
Maybe there could be some sort of math logo for articles that feature some math but I fear scientists disagree on all other subjects. |
|
| |
Truth is not a requirement for good science. |
|
| |
^ I did that, more or less, 4th anno down |
|
| |
The drawback here is that nothing is true, particularly this
anno. |
|
| |
Well, there is something, but quite what it all means is open to interpretation,,, |
|
| |
Like having a Papal (is that a word) stamp of infallibility.
Haven't we learned anything from Wikipedia? |
|
| |
Nothing is actually certain. Some things are just more likely
than others. |
|
| |
What would be more useful is a service for journalists that allows
them to have the script of any story with scientific, technical or
engineering content rapidly vetted and edited by a panel of
independant and appropriately trained experts who take a
nonpartisan approach but ensure that facts and terminology are
correct. |
|
| |
When the story is printed and/or broadcast, a distinctive "Rigorously
scrutinised by non-idiots" logo is permitted to be displayed. |
|
| |
The experts do NOT critique the point of view; they just ensure that
the terminology is correct. |
|
| |
Halfbakers would seem to be uniquely well qualified for this role. |
|
| |
I'm not so sure about that. We couldn't even decide if the goldfish bowl rolls. |
|
| |
//Papal (is that a word) stamp of infallibility. |
|
| |
Yes, it is, but not a spot on the paypal one. |
|
| |