Hoax of the Century

[Craneman 2]

You use a lot of words but say nothing.

No Danno, I am not saying that. Do you know what a premise is? If you build an argument around something that is not true, or something that is irrelevant, the argument may make sense in and of itself, but it has not merit because the premise is false or irrelevant.

I don't really mind if you don't understand what I am trying to tell you, but I do find it strange that you can't see when an article is based on research and fact as apposed to an ideological opinion.

I don't know how many ways to tell you, that the premise is false, wrong not true and irrelevant.

[Peikko 1,575]

I do thank you for your efforts to help me understand but really this is not a trick question such as....When did you stop beating your wife.

Where is the false premise? that these former examples were not hoaxes?

That the latter example of G Warming is not a hoax?

That "settled Science" is really settled?

From what I recall the overall premise was The greatest hoaxes we have seen have been in science and we are on the thresh hold of a new one.

No Danno, that's not the premise. Try again.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's a classic device, inject a couple of facts in order to lull the reader into believing that the rest of the article is also true. However, despite this obvious attempt at sleight of hand, the premise is still #######.

Much like the 2007 IPCC Report?

[Peikko 1,575]

You use a lot of words but say nothing.

Actually, I am saying a great deal. Understanding the bias of the author and the devices they employ in order to persuade the reader of the veracity of their arguments are fundamental to being able to sort the wheat from the chaff of journalism. It saves a lot of energy if you understand whether an argument is based on an interpretation of facts, or whether they just giving you an unsupported personal opinion.

[Craneman 2]

yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada

Actually, I am saying a great deal. Understanding the bias of the author and the devices they employ in order to persuade the reader of the veracity of their arguments are fundamental to being able to sort the wheat from the chaff of journalism. It saves a lot of energy if you understand whether an argument is based on an interpretation of facts, or whether they just giving you an unsupported personal opinion.

[Peikko 1,575]

Much like the 2007 IPCC Report?

Not by my understanding of it, no. Of course, if you believe that it is some huge conspiracy by the scientific community to get funding from governments to research something they know to be a lie, well, there's not much I can say. That's so stupid as to be unbelievable, so I don't.

Suffice to say, that even the email error thing is not really turning out to be a 'gotcha' moment in terms of there being some fundamental problem with the science, not that you'd know because the people that made all these claims have moved on, they don't care what was actually said. There is an inquiry going on in the UK at this very moment, and it's very interesting, if you like that kind of thing.

yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada

No skin off my nose if you don't care to understand.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Might be more enlightening.. if not entertaining if you poked a hole in just one point made in the article.

Come on. show us what the Queens Education can really do.

Danno, you've been around long enough to know the unwritten rule of VJ debating: Attack the source, not the content.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not by my understanding of it, no. Of course, if you believe that it is some huge conspiracy by the scientific community to get funding from governments to research something they know to be a lie, well, there's not much I can say. That's so stupid as to be unbelievable, so I don't.

Suffice to say, that even the email error thing is not really turning out to be a 'gotcha' moment in terms of there being some fundamental problem with the science, not that you'd know because the people that made all these claims have moved on, they don't care what was actually said. There is an inquiry going on in the UK at this very moment, and it's very interesting, if you like that kind of thing.

If only that was the case, that all the scientists were worried about was keeping the funding coming in. No, the reasons are far more insidious than that. What we have now, is a scientific community with an agenda. The agenda evolves from the perceived need to instill a conscience onto what was once a community given to impartial observation.

[Peikko 1,575]

If only that was the case, that all the scientists were worried about was keeping the funding coming in. No, the reasons are far more insidious than that. What we have now, is a scientific community with an agenda. The agenda evolves from the perceived need to instill a conscience onto what was once a community given to impartial observation.

Try again, that makes no sense. Scientists have stopped collecting and interpreting raw data, but are instead engaged in some unnamed unspecified 'agenda' because of some need to give their own community (whatever that is) a conscience?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I do thank you for your efforts to help me understand but really this is not a trick question such as....When did you stop beating your wife.

Where is the false premise? that these former examples were not hoaxes?

That the latter example of G Warming is not a hoax?

That "settled Science" is really settled?

From what I recall the overall premise was The greatest hoaxes we have seen have been in science and we are on the thresh hold of a new one.

Its an opinion piece. from someone who is no more authoritative or trustworthy on the subject than Al Gore.

The only people who would be interested in that are people who want to be told what they already believe.

It is not "research", no matter how many factoids are peppered into it.

[Danno 1,228]

Its an opinion piece. from someone who is no more authoritative or trustworthy on the subject than Al Gore.

The only people who would be interested in that are people who want to be told what they already believe.

It is not "research", no matter how many factoids are peppered into it.

I agree and No one is suggesting Pat Buchannan's an authority, he is a commenting on things.

But he not talking out his rear as the article is full of links which unfortunately don't work when posted at VJ.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree and No one is suggesting Pat Buchannan's an authority, he is a commenting on things.

But he not talking out his rear as the article is full of links which unfortunately don't work when posted at VJ.

Can I presume you've given up on working out what the premise is? Shall I help you out?

The premise is that because it's possible to prove that three [English] scientists perpetrated a hoax pertaining to evolution (a contentious theory even now eh Pat?) in order to gain Fame and fortune, climate scientists are necessarily perpetrating a hoax. He leaves it to your imagination that the reason they are doing so is in order to gain personally with fame and fortune, (there is also a charmingly hanging implication that perhaps it's English scientist that one should be more suspicious of?).

That is a hopeless premise, it doesn't make sense, but that's exactly what he is 'proving' in his arguments. If I were to bother to go over the 'arguments' themselves, they are also hopeless a hodge podge of the irrelevant and the idiotic. Take this one, according to the illustrious Pat, we should not be concerned about the [proven] claim that the artic ice cap is shrinking, because the antartic ice cap is growing. In Pat's mind, the shrinking of one is exactly counterbalanced by the growth of the other. That's mindless.

I could go on and on picking the whole thing apart but you get the picture now, surely?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Try again, that makes no sense. Scientists have stopped collecting and interpreting raw data, but are instead engaged in some unnamed unspecified 'agenda' because of some need to give their own community (whatever that is) a conscience?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=242135

[Danno 1,228]

Can I presume you've given up on working out what the premise is? Shall I help you out?

The premise is that because it's possible to prove that three [English] scientists perpetrated a hoax pertaining to evolution (a contentious theory even now eh Pat?) in order to gain Fame and fortune, climate scientists are necessarily perpetrating a hoax. He leaves it to your imagination that the reason they are doing so is in order to gain personally with fame and fortune, (there is also a charmingly hanging implication that perhaps it's English scientist that one should be more suspicious of?).

That is a hopeless premise, it doesn't make sense, but that's exactly what he is 'proving' in his arguments. If I were to bother to go over the 'arguments' themselves, they are also hopeless a hodge podge of the irrelevant and the idiotic. Take this one, according to the illustrious Pat, we should not be concerned about the [proven] claim that the artic ice cap is shrinking, because the antartic ice cap is growing. In Pat's mind, the shrinking of one is exactly counterbalanced by the growth of the other. That's mindless.

I could go on and on picking the whole thing apart but you get the picture now, surely?

MC I think he touched a sore spot for you when he noted that the British Knighted the Hoaxers?

That was such an incidental part of the story I had forgotten it but I see it stuck with you.

He also pointed out an American Hoaxer as well so don't be so sensitive.

Thanks for sharing what was in Pats mind when he wrote about ice caps.... because here I was thinking his point was... Greenland was green at one time so the ebb-N-flow of these temperatures are nothing new... in fact they may just as likely work to our benefit... as they did before.

In my opinion, if there is anything to be taken from all of this is, Science too often has jumped on their own band-wagon.

Looking at the same bogus facts and repeating the same conclusion.

How many scholars and scientist read these same reports and signed their names to documents confirming the original findings?

I assume the vast majority were sincere but no doubt some knew the numbers were cooked. (and cooked they were)

I could be wrong but I suspect this hoax has not yet been known fully known, there are more shoes to drop.

[Peikko 1,575]

MC I think he touched a sore spot for you when he noted that the British Knighted the Hoaxers?

That was such an incidental part of the story I had forgotten it but I see it stuck with you.

He also pointed out an American Hoaxer as well so don't be so sensitive.

Thanks for sharing what was in Pats mind when he wrote about ice caps.... because here I was thinking his point was... Greenland was green at one time so the ebb-N-flow of these temperatures are nothing new... in fact they may just as likely work to our benefit... as they did before.

In my opinion, if there is anything to be taken from all of this is, Science too often has jumped on their own band-wagon.

Looking at the same bogus facts and repeating the same conclusion.

How many scholars and scientist read these same reports and signed their names to documents confirming the original findings?

I assume the vast majority were sincere but no doubt some knew the numbers were cooked. (and cooked they were)

I could be wrong but I suspect this hoax has not yet been known fully known, there are more shoes to drop.

You don't get it do you? I tried.