Getting Hotter? What to do?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Didn't say I was, I asked you what level of "not ignoring" the "vested interest" we should use.

Data provided by scientists working for large organisations such as those associated with the fossil fuel industry and associated ancillary industries, in other words those with vested interests, should be viewed by the informed lay public with a large amount of scepticism; and should be compared, if possible, with reports/articles/papers from other bodies.

Reports from RW climate denying "think tanks" or other "foundations" "trusts", or "institutes", should be dismissed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Loved it!

I guess you saw the picture from our foreshore of a water spout?
I'll post that pic again because if you look along the horizon beneath the water-spout you'll sea a line-squall wave...... I haven't seen one of those around here, ever.

But all this stuff ain't happening.............. they pretend.
HERNE BAY.jpg

That is quite an amazing photograph. Did you take it? It was remarkable luck to capture that.

[CivilDiscourse]

Data provided by scientists working for large organisations such as those associated with the fossil fuel industry and associated ancillary industries, in other words those with vested interests, should be viewed by the informed lay public with a large amount of scepticism; and should be compared, if possible, with reports/articles/papers from other bodies.

Reports from RW climate denying "think tanks" or other "foundations" "trusts", or "institutes", should be dismissed.

So, at the same time, we should dismiss reports from LW/Progressive "think tanks", "Foundations", "Trusts" or "institutes"?

[oxmixmudd]

So, at the same time, we should dismiss reports from LW/Progressive "think tanks", "Foundations", "Trusts" or "institutes"?

In my opinion, any 'think tank' that is putting up substantial criticisms of mainstream science, and especially if they are known to be funded by industries negatively affected by the conclusions being reached by mainstream science, or to align with political agendas similarly negatively affected, need to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. But, I'm not a fan of blanket dismissals of all sources of a certain type.

[CivilDiscourse]

In my opinion, any 'think tank' that is putting up substantial criticisms of mainstream science, and especially if they are known to be funded by industries negatively affected by the conclusions being reached by mainstream science, or to align with political agendas similarly negatively affected, need to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. But, I'm not a fan of blanket dismissals of all sources of a certain type.

I'm all for healthy skepticism. You'll see I generally go through that here. I tend to not accept 'motivated' data providers at face value. If someone is referring to a document I'll tend to see if I can find that document to ensure that it's reflective of what that source says. If you see me dismissing due to source, it's usually a deliberate reflection to a poster who would dismiss stuff other's post because nothing more than the link contains a news source they don't like.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, at the same time, we should dismiss reports from LW/Progressive "think tanks", "Foundations", "Trusts" or "institutes"?

On climate change?

[CivilDiscourse]

On climate change?

why stop at climate change. After all, these think tanks (et.all) have a a vested interest in skewing data towards whatever point they want to make.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm all for healthy skepticism. You'll see I generally go through that here. I tend to not accept 'motivated' data providers at face value. If someone is referring to a document I'll tend to see if I can find that document to ensure that it's reflective of what that source says. If you see me dismissing due to source, it's usually a deliberate reflection to a poster who would dismiss stuff other's post because nothing more than the link contains a news source they don't like.

I find It is sometimes hard to balance skepticism of a source with a known track record for false or misleading information against a desire to give new or different ideas a chance. I'm sure we all have our 'wobbles' from time to time trying to balance on that narrow beam.

[CivilDiscourse]

I find It is sometimes hard to balance skepticism of a source with a known track record for false or misleading information against a desire to give new or different ideas a chance. I'm sure we all have our 'wobbles' from time to time trying to balance on that narrow beam.

It's not so much about giving it a chance, as it is simply saying "does it match reality?" If a site has a track record as you say, then debunk as opposed to dismiss. But a good debunk works on the claim, not the source.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

why stop at climate change. After all, these think tanks (et.all) have a a vested interest in skewing data towards whatever point they want to make.

The topic is climate change and climate scepticism.

[CivilDiscourse]

The topic is climate change and climate scepticism.

And? Would that logic not also apply to other groups with "Vested interests?"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And? Would that logic not also apply to other groups with "Vested interests?"

CD are you trying to derail this thread?

[Cow Poke]

That is quite an amazing photograph. Did you take it? It was remarkable luck to capture that.

Interestingly enough, since just about everybody on the planet (gross exaggeration admitted) has a cell phone with a camera, we are seeing things documented in photos that we would never otherwise have known.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interestingly enough, since just about everybody on the planet (gross exaggeration admitted) has a cell phone with a camera, we are seeing things documented in photos that we would never otherwise have known.

I would suggest it was serendipitous to capture that.

[Cow Poke]

I would suggest it was serendipitous to capture that.

To some extent, sure, but the chances of probability to capture such images have gone way up (I would say exponentially) as everybody has a camera.

What's interesting is when somebody captures something in the background of their intended 'target', and won't even realize what they've captured until later.
My wife and I have been watching a series on plane crashes (she's crazy) and it's amazing how many times people are just taking video of planes landing or taking off, and manage to record a major crash or anomaly.