Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?
If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do, you are exposed to a daily dose of hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories and misleading news. When it’s all mixed in with reliable information from honest sources, the truth can be very hard to discern.
More…
Interesting and pretty pictures, but I doubt anything like that will do much to help.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Interesting and pretty pictures, but I doubt anything like that will do much to help.
I like the pretty pictures too.
Perhaps the bigger question is, Why do clickbait headlines work?
As for fake news, people will look (and share) things that they already believe in e.g. pro- or anti-vaccination, Trump’s policies, conspiracies such as September 11 or chemtrails. No amount of correct information is going to change their minds.
Are people too lazy to look for correct information? Is correct information hard to find? Why is correct information hard to discern? Why do people distrust science?
As one facebook meme says, “I thought people had a reasonable grasp of scientific concepts until the internet was invented.”
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”
Trump and Pence and Misinformation, It will be difficult to believe anything they say, fact checkers will be working overtime with these two.
Pseudoscience is Misinformation
Creationism is Misinformation
Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
Divine Angel said:
Perhaps the bigger question is, Why do clickbait headlines work?As for fake news, people will look (and share) things that they already believe in e.g. pro- or anti-vaccination, Trump’s policies, conspiracies such as September 11 or chemtrails. No amount of correct information is going to change their minds.
Are people too lazy to look for correct information? Is correct information hard to find? Why is correct information hard to discern? Why do people distrust science?
As one facebook meme says, “I thought people had a reasonable grasp of scientific concepts until the internet was invented.”
i’d guess humans use social reality (the devices of – indulgences) to distract from (or as a substitute for) organic reality.
Intellectualizing too overlaps^ that above. I mean mental activity is involved in homeostasis (mechanisms that contribute to maintaining internal environment).
Some dubious aspects of the external environment have an interest in making adjustments to inputs and input parameters that influence and mediate the internal environment. The mind is receptive right of the bat, from birth.
Organic reality’s a smelly thing, life travels alongside illness, death and decay, though society somewhat keeps the latter realities out of sight, compartmentalizes and all. There’re too uncertainties of life, while alive.
There is no end to distractions from reality, I mean healthy mental states insulate the organism from them, generating an internal reality.
Human mental states are quite varied across the species. That feeling of the home in the head.
So out there roaming cyberspace are plenty examples of humans feeding their internal envirornment with whatever.
Worse there’re scale problems. The creatures indulging worldy matters, but even bigger the entire fucking universe, and back to the big bang. The expanding infinity, and the singularity, while tripping over their shoelaces.
So apparently looking inward can be somewhat blocked, and knowingness about that external not.
CrazyNeutrino said:
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”Trump and Pence and Misinformation, It will be difficult to believe anything they say, fact checkers will be working overtime with these two.
Pseudoscience is Misinformation
Creationism is Misinformation
Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
The Rev Dodgson said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”Trump and Pence and Misinformation, It will be difficult to believe anything they say, fact checkers will be working overtime with these two.
Pseudoscience is Misinformation
Creationism is Misinformation
Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
The Rev Dodgson said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”Trump and Pence and Misinformation, It will be difficult to believe anything they say, fact checkers will be working overtime with these two.
Pseudoscience is Misinformation
Creationism is Misinformation
Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
I’m with you Rev. (But it could get worse before it gets better)
Up until last week there were still carriers advertising plans for the offending phones.
The Rev Dodgson said:
If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
Interesting; here were have a classic example of an individual (the rev) who is suseptible to >>>Misinformation<<< !
Rev will believe anything & everything, uncritically, so long as it suits his political & social views.
Fred Wong
sarahs mum said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”Trump and Pence and Misinformation, It will be difficult to believe anything they say, fact checkers will be working overtime with these two.
Pseudoscience is Misinformation
Creationism is Misinformation
Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
I’m with you Rev. (But it could get worse before it gets better)
Thing is, these people believe misinformation is the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Miss Information herself
roughbarked said:
sarahs mum said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
I’m with you Rev. (But it could get worse before it gets better)
Thing is, these people believe misinformation is the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
There is no doubt that “climate Alarmism” has produced the most misinformation, of any topic ever debated by man.
The_observer said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
.
.Interesting; here were have a classic example of an individual (the rev) who is suseptible to >>>Misinformation<<< !
Rev will believe anything & everything, uncritically, so long as it suits his political & social views.
and here we have a classic example of someone who can’t read a post.
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:
sarahs mum said:I’m with you Rev. (But it could get worse before it gets better)
Thing is, these people believe misinformation is the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
There is no doubt that “climate Alarmism” has produced the most misinformation, of any topic ever debated by man.
Yes It brought you out of the woodwork.
Misinformation about global warming (the denial it’s happening) is all about money, vested interests and maintaining the status quo of energy production controlled by the few
ChrispenEvan said:
The_observer said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If any of the many and varied allegations of Trumps alleged illegal activities are true, there must be a reasonable chance that he will be impeached.
.
.Interesting; here were have a classic example of an individual (the rev) who is suseptible to >>>Misinformation<<< !
Rev will believe anything & everything, uncritically, so long as it suits his political & social views.
and here we have a classic example of someone who can’t read a post.
and here we have someone who said they didn’t read my posts
LOL dick
roughbarked said:
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:Thing is, these people believe misinformation is the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
There is no doubt that “climate Alarmism” has produced the most misinformation, of any topic ever debated by man.
Yes It brought you out of the woodwork.
Cymek said:
Misinformation about global warming (the denial it’s happening) is all about money, vested interests and maintaining the status quo of energy production controlled by the few
That’s an interesting observation.
Other forms of misinformation such as vaccination and cannabis-curing cancer are said to be a conspiracy involving money, but in reality are not.
The_observer said:
ChrispenEvan said:
The_observer said:.
.Interesting; here were have a classic example of an individual (the rev) who is suseptible to >>>Misinformation<<< !
Rev will believe anything & everything, uncritically, so long as it suits his political & social views.
and here we have a classic example of someone who can’t read a post.
and here we have someone who said they didn’t read my posts
LOL dick
better than being dickless, eh observer?
Cymek said:
Misinformation about global warming (the denial it’s happening) is all about money, vested interests and maintaining the status quo of energy production controlled by the few
climate alarmism is about the money, that’s where the trillions of dollars have gone.
vested interests in socialism & environmentalism, and Big Renewable Energy.
ChrispenEvan said:
The_observer said:
ChrispenEvan said:and here we have a classic example of someone who can’t read a post.
and here we have someone who said they didn’t read my posts
LOL dick
better than being dickless, eh observer?
now that’s sexist, biggoted, & gender phobic, you cock sucker
The_observer said:
Cymek said:
Misinformation about global warming (the denial it’s happening) is all about money, vested interests and maintaining the status quo of energy production controlled by the few
climate alarmism is about the money, that’s where the trillions of dollars have gone.
vested interests in socialism & environmentalism, and Big Renewable Energy.
what’s it like being on the losing side, dickless?
anyway, enough of engaging dickless halfwits for today, my superiority complex is sated.
ChrispenEvan said:
The_observer said:
Cymek said:
Misinformation about global warming (the denial it’s happening) is all about money, vested interests and maintaining the status quo of energy production controlled by the few
climate alarmism is about the money, that’s where the trillions of dollars have gone.
vested interests in socialism & environmentalism, and Big Renewable Energy.
what’s it like being on the losing side, dickless?
I know I’m on the winning side son. That why you are rude to me.
Trumps in boy, hadn’t you heard?
LOL
ChrispenEvan said:
anyway, enough of engaging dickless halfwits for today, my superiority complex is sated.
spoken like a typical lefty loser.
LOL
CrazyNeutrino said:
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
.
1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.
2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.
3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000.
4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.
5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.
As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:
Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing?
And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
The_observer said:
.
1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.
3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000.
4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.
5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.
As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:
Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing?
And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/methane-gas-emissions-growing-climate-wildcard-rice-paddy-csiro/8111554
CrazyNeutrino said:
“Trump has embraced pseudoscience and its tactics, and will be bringing it to the White House.”Trump and Pence and Misinformation, It will be difficult to believe anything they say, fact checkers will be working overtime with these two.
Do we really have to put up with 4 years of misinformation from these two
.
The Policy Hoax of Global Warming
Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term.
I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study.
While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.
In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.
So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).
There were gasps from the audience.
You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.
But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.
As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort.
As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.
Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.
So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.
Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.
In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.
Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
About the author -
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
No; you see its too unreliable & too expensive
Quote -
Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.
In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
End Energy Wars
End Resource Wars
Divine Angel said:
Cymek said:
Misinformation about global warming (the denial it’s happening) is all about money, vested interests and maintaining the status quo of energy production controlled by the few
That’s an interesting observation.
Other forms of misinformation such as vaccination and cannabis-curing cancer are said to be a conspiracy involving money, but in reality are not.
Conspiracy theories (the state of mind, config’ of faculties that inclines) possibly is in response to what of self-regulating societies involves informal and formal behavioural influences (behaviour controls). Of the mechanisms involved in, the (apparently) incidental is often more powerful than the explicated/obvious. The state, for example, in self-regulating societies reduces its involvement in individuals’ lives.
There’s certainly territory that can be seen as the state (ideological influences too) playing down and hiding their existence.
The state could also be extended to mean those with a disproportionate influence over wealth.
There is another level of reality (social and political), within which what things incidentally do is as or perhaps more important than the obvious. I think to some extent this is the world we live in. Obvious direct causation in the social field has limited explanatory power.
This is to protect individuals and organization from being understood into something they’re not, or have no interest in being. It’s the private parrying against intrusions.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
End Energy Wars
End Resource Wars
That would help, it’s pretty stupid when you think about it, fighting over resources that really belong to everyone on the planet.
roughbarked said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/methane-gas-emissions-growing-climate-wildcard-rice-paddy-csiro/8111554
just another attack by animal rights mob to ban farming cattle.
Rice produces most methane
anyway, metthane has risen by 160% since the industrial revolution with no measurable effect on climate.
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/methane-gas-emissions-growing-climate-wildcard-rice-paddy-csiro/8111554
just another attack by animal rights mob to ban farming cattle.
Rice produces most methane
anyway, metthane has risen by 160% since the industrial revolution with no measurable effect on climate.
Rice produces most methane ?
Most of it seeps from the ground
There are vast methane reservoirs deep underground
The_observer said:
Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
ruby said:
The_observer said:Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Aus used to have most of the patents for PV manufacture…sold ‘em to ze Germans…now we buy the PV panels from them. We am teh smats.
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/methane-gas-emissions-growing-climate-wildcard-rice-paddy-csiro/8111554
just another attack by animal rights mob to ban farming cattle.
Rice produces most methane
anyway, metthane has risen by 160% since the industrial revolution with no measurable effect on climate.
Rice produces most methane ?
Most of it seeps from the ground
There are vast methane reservoirs deep underground
Fact
One of the underground methane reservoirs is burning right now, and will do so for another 40 years
“The Door to Hell” drilling accident burning continuously for 40 years!
poikilotherm said:
ruby said:
The_observer said:Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Aus used to have most of the patents for PV manufacture…sold ‘em to ze Germans…now we buy the PV panels from them. We am teh smats.
ruby said:
poikilotherm said:
ruby said:The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Aus used to have most of the patents for PV manufacture…sold ‘em to ze Germans…now we buy the PV panels from them. We am teh smats.
Indeed we are the smats. The taxpayer is going to stump up a billion dollars to build a rail line to Adani’s coal mine.
Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
ruby said:
The_observer said:Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
By and large, the fossil fuel sector is already preparing for what will be an industrial only future…
The downstream oil and gas guys already figure that by 2050 we’ll have a majority of electric vehicles while the thermal coal side of things are in the throws of sorting out the last of major coal fired power infrastructure construction projects before the Paris accord kicks in.
The key now for the coal mining industry will be slowly ween itself off the ridiculous subsidies it has enjoyed and allow renewables to fill the natural growth in power demand.
By maybe we should wait to hear what the fossil fuel industry stooges think…
ruby said:
poikilotherm said:
ruby said:The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Aus used to have most of the patents for PV manufacture…sold ‘em to ze Germans…now we buy the PV panels from them. We am teh smats.
Indeed we are the smats. The taxpayer is going to stump up a billion dollars to build a rail line to Adani’s coal mine.
and make 20% on their investment in the mean time… crazy town…
ruby said:
The_observer said:Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Ruby,,, did you actually read my qoute you posted above?
Let me point out the bit you missed - “Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.”
what you’ve written is really childish tripe!
CrazyNeutrino said:
Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
The_observer said:
ruby said:
The_observer said:Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Ruby,,, did you actually read my qoute you posted above?
Let me point out the bit you missed - “Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.”
what you’ve written is really childish tripe!
Energy companies exist to make money out of other people.
If people create their own energy, then others will not be able to profit from other peoples needs.
And the Greedy People don’t like that idea of free energy, dont they observer.
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
They are stolen, and on a vast scale
you support this kind of theft?
then your a scumbag just like the greedy people stealing the resources
and your no friend of mine, I think your observation of things is shithouse
Resources belong to everybody
will these people hand it all back willingly?
CrazyNeutrino said:
Energy companies exist to make money out of other people.
If people create their own energy, then others will not be able to profit from other peoples needs.
And the Greedy People don’t like that idea of free energy, dont they observer.
guess what CN – every company & business exists to make money out of people. Its called capitalism.
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
The_observer said:
ruby said:
The_observer said:Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.
The private sector IS figuring it out, much to the annoyance of fossil fuel companies who want us to stick with their old ways.
And other countries are forging ahead with renewables, and we are missing the boat on the business that being innovative brings. Sucks that we listened to the old fossil fuelers as they shouted and stomped their feet in anger.
Ruby,,, did you actually read my qoute you posted above?
Let me point out the bit you missed - “Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.”
what you’ve written is really childish tripe!
that’s not really true… many energy companies do care what is the make up of their biusiness and like I said, many fossil fuel companies are already preparing for an industrals future, not an energy furture.
It would seem pretty short sighted for a company not to care about the sustainability and potential cost of fuel their source as well as the utilisation of their current infrastructure. In fact, it would be more than short sighted, it would be complete corporate negligence and that’s something directors of (especially public companies) take rather seriously…
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
They are stolen, and on a vast scale
you support this kind of theft?
then your a scumbag just like the greedy people stealing the resources
and your no friend of mine, I think your observation of things is shithouse
Resources belong to everybody
will these people hand it all back willingly?
I think stolen is a very poor use of words – there is however an argument to suggest that they are exploited at less than fair value.
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
They are stolen, and on a vast scale
you support this kind of theft?
then your a scumbag just like the greedy people stealing the resources
and your no friend of mine, I think your observation of things is shithouse
Resources belong to everybody
will these people hand it all back willingly?
LOL, your funny
Well I guess I support these companies, that haven’t been arrested & put in prison.
Like everyone else.
You support them every time you fill up your car, turn on the light, go to the supermarket.
Like me, you are a scumbag.
The_observer said:
Its called capitalism.
CrazyNeutrino said:Energy companies exist to make money out of other people.
If people create their own energy, then others will not be able to profit from other peoples needs.
And the Greedy People don’t like that idea of free energy, dont they observer.
guess what CN – every company & business exists to make money out of people. Its called capitalism.
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
To other its called theft of public property
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what creating free energy got to do with theft?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
one that should be owned by everybody, not a few greedy rich people who think its theirs and have their right to it
you support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like them
ruby said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
I read the Guardian article about what great cost companies are incurring to selflessly give us energy and goods.
Do you pay more tax than Australia’s biggest companies?
Thanks goodness we have such magnanimous companies to, at great cost to themselves, bring us the wonders of the modern world.
There are many very good (and perfectly legal) reasons for a company to have paid very little, or no tax.
ruby said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
I read the Guardian article about what great cost companies are incurring to selflessly give us energy and goods.
Do you pay more tax than Australia’s biggest companies?
Thanks goodness we have such magnanimous companies to, at great cost to themselves, bring us the wonders of the modern world.
It’s obvious its an argument from a socialists point of view.
You hate big companies, that make lots of money, no matter how many hospitals & schools or hippie community centres their taxes pay for.
If the world goes your way ruby, in about 40 years time, you’ll be bitching about the greedy renewable energy companies.
Its a no win situation for you
diddly-squat said:
ruby said:
The_observer said:here’s another idiotic statement.
They are not stolen in any way.
At great cost they are mined to produce energy & goods, for ungreatful idiots like you CN
I read the Guardian article about what great cost companies are incurring to selflessly give us energy and goods.
Do you pay more tax than Australia’s biggest companies?
Thanks goodness we have such magnanimous companies to, at great cost to themselves, bring us the wonders of the modern world.
There are many very good (and perfectly legal) reasons for a company to have paid very little, or no tax.
The same good and legal reasons our PM had a Cayman Island account too now doubt eh.
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:Its called capitalism.
CrazyNeutrino said:Energy companies exist to make money out of other people.
If people create their own energy, then others will not be able to profit from other peoples needs.
And the Greedy People don’t like that idea of free energy, dont they observer.
guess what CN – every company & business exists to make money out of people. Its called capitalism.
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
To other its called theft of public property
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what creating free energy got to do with theft?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
one that should be owned by everybody, not a few greedy rich people who think its theirs and have their right to it
you support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like them
in fairness… there is nothing stopping you from being an owner of any public resource company – in fact I’d argue that the vast majority of many resource companies are owned by the public majority, rather than the wealthy minority
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:Its called capitalism.
CrazyNeutrino said:Energy companies exist to make money out of other people.
If people create their own energy, then others will not be able to profit from other peoples needs.
And the Greedy People don’t like that idea of free energy, dont they observer.
guess what CN – every company & business exists to make money out of people. Its called capitalism.
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
To other its called theft of public property
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what creating free energy got to do with theft?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
one that should be owned by everybody, not a few greedy rich people who think its theirs and have their right to it
you support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like them
You could save yourself much energy & just declare your a socialist CN
poikilotherm said:
diddly-squat said:
ruby said:I read the Guardian article about what great cost companies are incurring to selflessly give us energy and goods.
Do you pay more tax than Australia’s biggest companies?
Thanks goodness we have such magnanimous companies to, at great cost to themselves, bring us the wonders of the modern world.
There are many very good (and perfectly legal) reasons for a company to have paid very little, or no tax.
The same good and legal reasons our PM had a Cayman Island account too now doubt eh.
well, there are good reasons and there are “legal” reasons… the latter may not always be morally comparable with the former
CN, what is this “free energy” you speak of?
I will sign up now.
what number do I call ?
Can I help or is this all dealt with?
according to the international Energy Agency, the world will use 1 billion tonnes more coal in 2019 than today – more than 9 billion tonnes a year.19 There is more coal-fired electricity capacity in the investment pipeline than any other fuel (Figure 1)
The IEA projects that in 2030, coal will account for 25 per cent of world primary energy demand and 31 per cent of world electricity generation. China is, and is projected to remain, the world’s largest consumer and producer of coal through to at least 2030. China’s coal demand growth shows no notable sign of decline by 2030 and 345 gigawatts of net new coal-fired capacity is installed by that year – more than six times Australia’s existing total capacity for all energy types.
The IEA’s projections also see continued growth in India’s demand for coal-fired generation. India’s coal-fired capacity grows by 70 per cent by 2030.24 Coal is also expected to become the dominant fuel in Southeast Asia.25
diddly-squat said:
poikilotherm said:
diddly-squat said:There are many very good (and perfectly legal) reasons for a company to have paid very little, or no tax.
The same good and legal reasons our PM had a Cayman Island account too now doubt eh.
well, there are good reasons and there are “legal” reasons… the latter may not always be morally comparable with the former
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:Its called capitalism.guess what CN – every company & business exists to make money out of people. Its called capitalism.
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
To other its called theft of public property
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what creating free energy got to do with theft?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
one that should be owned by everybody, not a few greedy rich people who think its theirs and have their right to it
you support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like them
You could save yourself much energy & just declare your a socialist CN
You support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like the others who think they own and have a right to public resources
Greedy people with their bully behavior who want to own riches and resources
I see them as criminals
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Its called capitalism.To other its called theft of public property
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what creating free energy got to do with theft?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
one that should be owned by everybody, not a few greedy rich people who think its theirs and have their right to it
you support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like them
You could save yourself much energy & just declare your a socialist CN
You support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like the others who think they own and have a right to public resources
Greedy people with their bully behavior who want to own riches and resources
I see them as criminals
you are a hypocrite, aren’t you.
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.
And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
The_observer said:
according to the international Energy Agency, the world will use 1 billion tonnes more coal in 2019 than today – more than 9 billion tonnes a year.19 There is more coal-fired electricity capacity in the investment pipeline than any other fuel (Figure 1)!http://littleblackrock.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2-FutureofCoal-Global1.png
The IEA projects that in 2030, coal will account for 25 per cent of world primary energy demand and 31 per cent of world electricity generation. China is, and is projected to remain, the world’s largest consumer and producer of coal through to at least 2030. China’s coal demand growth shows no notable sign of decline by 2030 and 345 gigawatts of net new coal-fired capacity is installed by that year – more than six times Australia’s existing total capacity for all energy types.
The IEA’s projections also see continued growth in India’s demand for coal-fired generation. India’s coal-fired capacity grows by 70 per cent by 2030.24 Coal is also expected to become the dominant fuel in Southeast Asia.25
note however, that coal’s proportion in the overall energy mix is decreasing
>You could save yourself much energy & just declare your a socialist CN
democracy’s a bit socialist
shhh…..don’t tell anyone
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:
CrazyNeutrino said:Its called capitalism.To other its called theft of public property
and are you manufacturing your on solar panels & wind turbine CN?
what creating free energy got to do with theft?
what mining & resource companies will you purchase your raw materials from?
one that should be owned by everybody, not a few greedy rich people who think its theirs and have their right to it
you support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like them
You could save yourself much energy & just declare your a socialist CN
You support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like the others who think they own and have a right to public resources
Greedy people with their bully behavior who want to own riches and resources
I see them as criminals
This is just plain silly…
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
Well the WA Nats have thought of that …
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
roffle… I wonder if ScoMo is looking the coal prices now and wishing there was a mechanism to get get his hands on some of that cash…
The other thing that could be done of course is to remove the diesel rebate
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
Well the WA Nats have thought of that …
That answers the question about what you can do to help then.
Vote WA Nat the next chance you get.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
Well the WA Nats have thought of that …
Although the Mining Tax addressed the difference between high profit years and low profit years, but for some reason Mr Abbott and the LNP made it politically inappropriate.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
Well the WA Nats have thought of that …
That answers the question about what you can do to help then.
Vote WA Nat the next chance you get.
roffle…
That would be a sight…
diddly-squat said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
The_observer said:You could save yourself much energy & just declare your a socialist CN
You support that kind of theft
your a scumbag like the others who think they own and have a right to public resources
Greedy people with their bully behavior who want to own riches and resources
I see them as criminals
This is just plain silly…
yes. I propose that when anyone posts this type of dribble, it be dubbed “Neutrinoing”
or would that be a little Crazy ??
I suppose we shall be seeing a great deal more of the Observer until One Nation returns to Canberra.
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
Well the WA Nats have thought of that …
Although the Mining Tax addressed the difference between high profit years and low profit years, but for some reason Mr Abbott and the LNP made it politically inappropriate.
For a not so simplistic explanation of the politics of the RRT you should read Triumph and Demise by Paul Kelly.
PermeateFree said:
I suppose we shall be seeing a great deal more of the Observer until One Nation returns to Canberra.
don’t bank on it fw
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
I suppose we shall be seeing a great deal more of the Observer until One Nation returns to Canberra.
don’t bank on it fw
I was looking on with some interest to see how you would respond to an earlier post from Cymek, but it was completely ignored by you. It seems reasonable and not critical of your position and might grow the discussion.
From: Cymek
ID: 995613
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
I suppose we shall be seeing a great deal more of the Observer until One Nation returns to Canberra.
don’t bank on it fw
I was looking on with some interest to see how you would respond to an earlier post from Cymek, but it was completely ignored by you. It seems reasonable and not critical of your position and might grow the discussion.
From: Cymek
ID: 995613
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
well I can choose to, or not to, answer any questions I like of course.
But I did address cymec
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:don’t bank on it fw
I was looking on with some interest to see how you would respond to an earlier post from Cymek, but it was completely ignored by you. It seems reasonable and not critical of your position and might grow the discussion.
From: Cymek
ID: 995613
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
well I can choose to, or not to, answer any questions I like of course.
But I did address cymec
also, I see your perception is still shit
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:don’t bank on it fw
I was looking on with some interest to see how you would respond to an earlier post from Cymek, but it was completely ignored by you. It seems reasonable and not critical of your position and might grow the discussion.
From: Cymek
ID: 995613
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
well I can choose to, or not to, answer any questions I like of course.
But I did address cymec
But not that specific post. Would it be too onerous to have a go?
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:I was looking on with some interest to see how you would respond to an earlier post from Cymek, but it was completely ignored by you. It seems reasonable and not critical of your position and might grow the discussion.
From: Cymek
ID: 995613
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.
Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
well I can choose to, or not to, answer any questions I like of course.
But I did address cymec
But not that specific post. Would it be too onerous to have a go?
Yes, that specific post >> ID: 995616
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?
you fuckwit
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:well I can choose to, or not to, answer any questions I like of course.
But I did address cymec
But not that specific post. Would it be too onerous to have a go?
Yes, that specific post >> ID: 995616
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?you fuckwit
So you regard your abbreviated response below as being adequate? What about the rest of the question?
From: The_observer
ID: 995616
Subject: re: Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.No; you see its too unreliable & too expensive
Quote –
Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.
In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.>>>> Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
repeat
The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.
so, perm, the supposed wars will continue & solar panels on my roof would have no affect on that!
The_observer said:
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.>>>> Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
repeat
The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.so, perm, the supposed wars will continue & solar panels on my roof would have no affect on that!
You place a great deal of faith in Bjorn Lomborg, You don’t appreciate he is a highly controversial person with highly controversial views. Still if you prefer to believe such an individual over scientists who study these things, there is nothing else to be said.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
Cymek said:
T_O do you not think that it makes sense to shift to cleaner energy even if global warming is completely made up.>>>> Also those that control energy production from coal, gas, oil can hold the world to ransom and we fight wars over those very resources. If power generation is decentralised then its much harder to do that. Who as householder wouldn’t like to be completely or at least mostly self sufficient for power.
repeat
The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.so, perm, the supposed wars will continue & solar panels on my roof would have no affect on that!
You place a great deal of faith in Bjorn Lomborg, You don’t appreciate he is a highly controversial person with highly controversial views. Still if you prefer to believe such an individual over scientists who study these things, there is nothing else to be said.
Being considered controversial by people like yourself, just means he’s not controversial at all.
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.
Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:repeat
The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.so, perm, the supposed wars will continue & solar panels on my roof would have no affect on that!
You place a great deal of faith in Bjorn Lomborg, You don’t appreciate he is a highly controversial person with highly controversial views. Still if you prefer to believe such an individual over scientists who study these things, there is nothing else to be said.
Being considered controversial by people like yourself, just means he’s not controversial at all.
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.
Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
That is not the point. Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental or climate scientist who actually study these things. It doesn’t say much for the majorities if you are representative of them, now does it?
The_observer said:
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
Then why not fuck off to America? You’re not likely to be missed :)
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
Then why not fuck off to America? You’re not likely to be missed :)
i thought the majority voted clinton, about 2.5 million more in fact.
ChrispenEvan said:
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
Then why not fuck off to America? You’re not likely to be missed :)
i thought the majority voted clinton, about 2.5 million more in fact.
As that Vietnamese General said when an America General said that they had never lost a battle, “that may be true, it is also irrelevant”.
Bubblecar said:
The_observer said:
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
Then why not fuck off to America? You’re not likely to be missed :)
it a worldwide thingy. I’ll be fine right here lovey
AwesomeO said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Bubblecar said:Then why not fuck off to America? You’re not likely to be missed :)
i thought the majority voted clinton, about 2.5 million more in fact.
As that Vietnamese General said when an America General said that they had never lost a battle, “that may be true, it is also irrelevant”.
That depends on why the fact is being quoted.
If the matter of debate is who is the President-elect in the USA, it is indeed irrelevant that he did not win the popular vote.
If the matter of debate is whose opinion forms the majority view, then it is relevant.
Although why this is seen as being of any importance, when the vote was so close, I really don’t know.
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
ChrispenEvan said:i thought the majority voted clinton, about 2.5 million more in fact.
As that Vietnamese General said when an America General said that they had never lost a battle, “that may be true, it is also irrelevant”.
That depends on why the fact is being quoted.
If the matter of debate is who is the President-elect in the USA, it is indeed irrelevant that he did not win the popular vote.
If the matter of debate is whose opinion forms the majority view, then it is relevant.
Although why this is seen as being of any importance, when the vote was so close, I really don’t know.
As I understand it, Hilary won California, the most populous state by a massive amount. Unfortunately under their system winning one state, even by a huge amount is not enough to outweigh the rest of the country.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:You place a great deal of faith in Bjorn Lomborg, You don’t appreciate he is a highly controversial person with highly controversial views. Still if you prefer to believe such an individual over scientists who study these things, there is nothing else to be said.
Being considered controversial by people like yourself, just means he’s not controversial at all.
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.
Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
That is not the point. Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental or climate scientist who actually study these things. It doesn’t say much for the majorities if you are representative of them, now does it?
Oh dear. Lets be a bit more accurate
Longer biography
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is an academic and the author of the best-selling “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”. He challenges mainstream concerns about development and the environment and points out that we need to focus attention on the smartest solutions first. He is a visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center which brings together many of the world’s top economists, including seven Nobel Laureates, to set priorities for the world.
The University of Pennsylvania asked almost 7,000 think tanks and thousands of journalists, public and private donors, and policymakers from around the world to nominate and rank the world’s best think tanks. Copenhagen Consensus Center’s advocacy for data-driven smart solutions to global challenges were voted into the top 20 among NGOs with up to 100 times’ larger budget. The Economist said “Copenhagen Consensus is an outstanding, visionary idea and deserves global coverage.”
He is also the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen.
More than enough credential to make the conclusion I have highlighted
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:As that Vietnamese General said when an America General said that they had never lost a battle, “that may be true, it is also irrelevant”.
That depends on why the fact is being quoted.
If the matter of debate is who is the President-elect in the USA, it is indeed irrelevant that he did not win the popular vote.
If the matter of debate is whose opinion forms the majority view, then it is relevant.
Although why this is seen as being of any importance, when the vote was so close, I really don’t know.
As I understand it, Hilary won California, the most populous state by a massive amount. Unfortunately under their system winning one state, even by a huge amount is not enough to outweigh the rest of the country.
Yes, that (plus all the other states where Clinton got a majority) is indeed why not getting the majority of the votes does not stop Trump being President-elect.
It does however stop him being the recipient of the majority of votes, which was the matter under debate.
But as I said, it’s not important anyway, there isn’t a clear majority either way.
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:That depends on why the fact is being quoted.
If the matter of debate is who is the President-elect in the USA, it is indeed irrelevant that he did not win the popular vote.
If the matter of debate is whose opinion forms the majority view, then it is relevant.
Although why this is seen as being of any importance, when the vote was so close, I really don’t know.
As I understand it, Hilary won California, the most populous state by a massive amount. Unfortunately under their system winning one state, even by a huge amount is not enough to outweigh the rest of the country.
Yes, that (plus all the other states where Clinton got a majority) is indeed why not getting the majority of the votes does not stop Trump being President-elect.
It does however stop him being the recipient of the majority of votes, which was the matter under debate.
But as I said, it’s not important anyway, there isn’t a clear majority either way.
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.
It does however stop him being the recipient of the majority of votes, which was the matter under debate.
correct and is what I corrected.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:Being considered controversial by people like yourself, just means he’s not controversial at all.
Didn’t you hear? Trump is in.
Because the majority of people like me are tired of the crap spoken by minotities like you
That is not the point. Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental or climate scientist who actually study these things. It doesn’t say much for the majorities if you are representative of them, now does it?
Oh dear. Lets be a bit more accurate
Longer biography
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is an academic and the author of the best-selling “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”. He challenges mainstream concerns about development and the environment and points out that we need to focus attention on the smartest solutions first. He is a visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center which brings together many of the world’s top economists, including seven Nobel Laureates, to set priorities for the world.
The University of Pennsylvania asked almost 7,000 think tanks and thousands of journalists, public and private donors, and policymakers from around the world to nominate and rank the world’s best think tanks. Copenhagen Consensus Center’s advocacy for data-driven smart solutions to global challenges were voted into the top 20 among NGOs with up to 100 times’ larger budget. The Economist said “Copenhagen Consensus is an outstanding, visionary idea and deserves global coverage.”
He is also the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen.
More than enough credential to make the conclusion I have highlighted
But he is a Statistician, he looks at statistics and makes conclusions from those statistics. He is not a scientist who understands what lies behind those statistics, consequently his conclusions are not regarded very highly.
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:As I understand it, Hilary won California, the most populous state by a massive amount. Unfortunately under their system winning one state, even by a huge amount is not enough to outweigh the rest of the country.
Yes, that (plus all the other states where Clinton got a majority) is indeed why not getting the majority of the votes does not stop Trump being President-elect.
It does however stop him being the recipient of the majority of votes, which was the matter under debate.
But as I said, it’s not important anyway, there isn’t a clear majority either way.
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.
however you cut it trump did not win the majority of the popular vote. that was all i was correcting. and of course some say he won the majority because they want him to appear legit. the alt-right seem to want it both ways.
In the last South Australian election the Liberals won 53% of the popular vote but labor formed government because they won more seats, there were no demonstrations, no outrage because conservatives respect and understand the electoral institution.
Peak Warming Man said:
In the last South Australian election the Liberals won 53% of the popular vote but labor formed government because they won more seats, there were no demonstrations, no outrage because conservatives respect and understand the electoral institution.
probably the same reason ON got so many senators. preferences and above line voting can suck sometimes.
ChrispenEvan said:
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Yes, that (plus all the other states where Clinton got a majority) is indeed why not getting the majority of the votes does not stop Trump being President-elect.
It does however stop him being the recipient of the majority of votes, which was the matter under debate.
But as I said, it’s not important anyway, there isn’t a clear majority either way.
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.
however you cut it trump did not win the majority of the popular vote. that was all i was correcting. and of course some say he won the majority because they want him to appear legit. the alt-right seem to want it both ways.
The majority of the vote in the majprity of the states, but yes, more people voted for Hilary most of them in California. But again, that is irrelevent. At home our senate was constituted was to stop that effect, the most populous states having a disproportionate say because of their numbers.
Peak Warming Man said:
In the last South Australian election the Liberals won 53% of the popular vote but labor formed government because they won more seats, there were no demonstrations, no outrage because conservatives respect and understand the electoral institution.
roffle…
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
In the last South Australian election the Liberals won 53% of the popular vote but labor formed government because they won more seats, there were no demonstrations, no outrage because conservatives respect and understand the electoral institution.
probably the same reason ON got so many senators. preferences and above line voting can suck sometimes.
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
In the last South Australian election the Liberals won 53% of the popular vote but labor formed government because they won more seats, there were no demonstrations, no outrage because conservatives respect and understand the electoral institution.
probably the same reason ON got so many senators. preferences and above line voting can suck sometimes.
That’s not suck CE, that’s democracy.
only if your team wins.
;-)
ChrispenEvan said:
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:probably the same reason ON got so many senators. preferences and above line voting can suck sometimes.
That’s not suck CE, that’s democracy.only if your team wins.
;-)
ChrispenEvan said:
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:probably the same reason ON got so many senators. preferences and above line voting can suck sometimes.
That’s not suck CE, that’s democracy.only if your team wins.
;-)
Or you appreciate changes of government that don’t involve machine guns.
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Tamb said:That’s not suck CE, that’s democracy.
only if your team wins.
;-)
Your suck comment seems to indicate that your team lost.
no, i was sympathizing with PWM for his team losing.
AwesomeO said:
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.
Since I have now agreed twice that it doesn’t make his presidency illegitimate, and no-one in this thread has suggested it does, I don’t know why you are going on about it.
The suggestion was that since Trump supporters are in “the majority”, non-Trump supporters are now a total irrelevance, which (as I’m sure you agree) total crap.
ChrispenEvan said:
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:only if your team wins.
;-)
Your suck comment seems to indicate that your team lost.no, i was sympathizing with PWM for his team losing.
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
In the last South Australian election the Liberals won 53% of the popular vote but labor formed government because they won more seats, there were no demonstrations, no outrage because conservatives respect and understand the electoral institution.
probably the same reason ON got so many senators. preferences and above line voting can suck sometimes.
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.Since I have now agreed twice that it doesn’t make his presidency illegitimate, and no-one in this thread has suggested it does, I don’t know why you are going on about it.
The suggestion was that since Trump supporters are in “the majority”, non-Trump supporters are now a total irrelevance, which (as I’m sure you agree) total crap.
they’re just sore winners, Rev.
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.Since I have now agreed twice that it doesn’t make his presidency illegitimate, and no-one in this thread has suggested it does, I don’t know why you are going on about it.
The suggestion was that since Trump supporters are in “the majority”, non-Trump supporters are now a total irrelevance, which (as I’m sure you agree) total crap.
Going on about it? LOL. Got here late in the afternoon and made I think three posts. I look forward to you likewise rebuking other posters that go on about stuff in excess of what you deem necessary.
Or just go on about stuff, there is plenty of choice on this forum. Should I start monitoring your posts to ensure you don’t go on about stuff too much?
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
AwesomeO said:
It is most often used to indicate that his potential presidency is illegitimate because Hilary got more votes. There are many ways you can say his victory was illegitimate but under their system, winning lots of votes in California is not one of them.Since I have now agreed twice that it doesn’t make his presidency illegitimate, and no-one in this thread has suggested it does, I don’t know why you are going on about it.
The suggestion was that since Trump supporters are in “the majority”, non-Trump supporters are now a total irrelevance, which (as I’m sure you agree) total crap.
Going on about it? LOL. Got here late in the afternoon and made I think three posts. I look forward to you likewise rebuking other posters that go on about stuff in excess of what you deem necessary.
Or just go on about stuff, there is plenty of choice on this forum. Should I start monitoring your posts to ensure you don’t go on about stuff too much?
I think you should read more of the older posts to get an idea of what has already been discussed.
AwesomeO said:
Or just go on about stuff, there is plenty of choice on this forum. Should I start monitoring your posts to ensure you don’t go on about stuff too much?
Sure, if I repeat the same stuff twice to someone who in fact agreed with me in the first place, let me know.
Anyway, it seems we’re all agreed.
Trump is the legitimate POTUS-elect, at least for now, and the_“observer” talks a load of crap.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:That is not the point. Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental or climate scientist who actually study these things. It doesn’t say much for the majorities if you are representative of them, now does it?
Oh dear. Lets be a bit more accurate
Longer biography
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is an academic and the author of the best-selling “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”. He challenges mainstream concerns about development and the environment and points out that we need to focus attention on the smartest solutions first. He is a visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center which brings together many of the world’s top economists, including seven Nobel Laureates, to set priorities for the world.
The University of Pennsylvania asked almost 7,000 think tanks and thousands of journalists, public and private donors, and policymakers from around the world to nominate and rank the world’s best think tanks. Copenhagen Consensus Center’s advocacy for data-driven smart solutions to global challenges were voted into the top 20 among NGOs with up to 100 times’ larger budget. The Economist said “Copenhagen Consensus is an outstanding, visionary idea and deserves global coverage.”
He is also the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen.
More than enough credential to make the conclusion I have highlighted
But he is a Statistician, he looks at statistics and makes conclusions from those statistics. He is not a scientist who understands what lies behind those statistics, consequently his conclusions are not regarded very highly.
You’re either willfully stupid perm (thats a given), or just fishing for your daily argument on this forum, in any case let me point out some basics for you.
1. Lomborg’s findings I highlighted here – The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources
A statisician is exactly the qualification needed to formulate this conclusion. Not a climate scientist or heavens above, an environmentalist. Whats more, lomborg derives his conclusions with his Copenhagen Consensus Center’s Nobel Laureate winning economists.
That would be the Copenhagen Consensus Center voted in the top 20 of the worlds best think tanks.
and that is why his, & his think tanks findings are regarded exceptionally high, by all except leftwing, climate alarmist nutjobs like you.
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:Oh dear. Lets be a bit more accurate
Longer biography
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is an academic and the author of the best-selling “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”. He challenges mainstream concerns about development and the environment and points out that we need to focus attention on the smartest solutions first. He is a visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center which brings together many of the world’s top economists, including seven Nobel Laureates, to set priorities for the world.
The University of Pennsylvania asked almost 7,000 think tanks and thousands of journalists, public and private donors, and policymakers from around the world to nominate and rank the world’s best think tanks. Copenhagen Consensus Center’s advocacy for data-driven smart solutions to global challenges were voted into the top 20 among NGOs with up to 100 times’ larger budget. The Economist said “Copenhagen Consensus is an outstanding, visionary idea and deserves global coverage.”
He is also the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen.
More than enough credential to make the conclusion I have highlighted
But he is a Statistician, he looks at statistics and makes conclusions from those statistics. He is not a scientist who understands what lies behind those statistics, consequently his conclusions are not regarded very highly.
You’re either willfully stupid perm (thats a given), or just fishing for your daily argument on this forum, in any case let me point out some basics for you.
1. Lomborg’s findings I highlighted here – The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources
A statisician is exactly the qualification needed to formulate this conclusion. Not a climate scientist or heavens above, an environmentalist. Whats more, lomborg derives his conclusions with his Copenhagen Consensus Center’s Nobel Laureate winning economists.
That would be the Copenhagen Consensus Center voted in the top 20 of the worlds best think tanks.
and that is why his, & his think tanks findings are regarded exceptionally high, by all except leftwing, climate alarmist nutjobs like you.
Statisticians and Economists are not scientists, yet many consider their statistical analysis to be superior to those who produce them. Statistics are one thing, understanding is another. Lomborg is not highly regarded amongst thinking people, although he obviously is with the dumb, stupid and ignorant.
>The suggestion was that since Trump supporters are in “the majority”, non-Trump supporters are now a total irrelevance, which (as I’m sure you agree) total crap.
a loser (and winner) existed before the election, the election decided who got what..
the question is where did these possibilities exist.
The_observer said:
roughbarked said:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/methane-gas-emissions-growing-climate-wildcard-rice-paddy-csiro/8111554
just another attack by animal rights mob to ban farming cattle.
Rice produces most methane
anyway, metthane has risen by 160% since the industrial revolution with no measurable effect on climate.
It isn’t animal rights people that haver made comments about cattle farming. It is scientists.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html
CrazyNeutrino said:
ruby said:
poikilotherm said:Aus used to have most of the patents for PV manufacture…sold ‘em to ze Germans…now we buy the PV panels from them. We am teh smats.
Indeed we are the smats. The taxpayer is going to stump up a billion dollars to build a rail line to Adani’s coal mine.Greedy People stealing resources belonging to everyone
“How Is It (We Are Here)”
How is it we are here, on this path we walk,
In this world of pointless fear, filled with empty talk,
Descending from the apes as scientist-priests all think,
Will they save us in the end, we’re trembling on the brink.
Men’s mighty mine-machines digging in the ground,
Stealing rare minerals where they can be found.
Concrete caves with iron doors, bury it again,
While a starving frightened world fills the sea with grain.
Her love is like a fire burning inside,
Her love is so much higher it can’t be denied,
She sends us her glory, it’s always been there,
Her love’s all around us, it’s there for you and me to share.
Men’s mighty mine-machines digging in the ground,
Stealing rare minerals where they can be found.
Concrete caves with iron doors, bury it again,
While a starving frightened world fills the sea with grain.
Moody Blues ~ 1969
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
and legal is something those who have the money to pay for, get.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
and legal is something those who have the money to pay for, get.
The law is geared to benefit the status quo for the most part
diddly-squat said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
I think that d-s’s point is that there are reasons that a company might not pay taxes one year that might be legal and good.And of course there are reasons that might be legal and not all that good.
And some reasons that are not legal.
It’s undoubtedly true that mining companies have very variable profit results.
Perhaps we should have a system where the mining companies (or at least the very big ones) paid extra tax in the years of high profit,, to compensate for the little or no tax years.
I’m surprised no-one has thought of that before.
roffle… I wonder if ScoMo is looking the coal prices now and wishing there was a mechanism to get get his hands on some of that cash…
The other thing that could be done of course is to remove the diesel rebate
Only a small sector of the community get the rebate.
While a starving frightened world fills the sea with grain.
What’s that supposed to mean?
AwesomeO said:
While a starving frightened world fills the sea with grain.What’s that supposed to mean?
Obviously you weren’t here in 1969.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
While a starving frightened world fills the sea with grain.What’s that supposed to mean?
Obviously you weren’t here in 1969.
well obviously you were, so what’s it supposed to mean?
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
While a starving frightened world fills the sea with grain.What’s that supposed to mean?
Obviously you weren’t here in 1969.
well obviously you were, so what’s it supposed to mean?
There were very many starving people at the time and Australia Canada and America were dumping grain in the sea to control the market.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:Obviously you weren’t here in 1969.
well obviously you were, so what’s it supposed to mean?
There were very many starving people at the time and Australia Canada and America were dumping grain in the sea to control the market.
That does make sense. What doesn’t make sense is why you didn’t say so the first time.
>well obviously you were, so what’s it supposed to mean?
would’ve though war or prospect of war, but dunno
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:well obviously you were, so what’s it supposed to mean?
There were very many starving people at the time and Australia Canada and America were dumping grain in the sea to control the market.
That does make sense. What doesn’t make sense is why you didn’t say so the first time.
As you pointed out it makes sense in 2016.
However it was more apparent in 1969.
transition said:
>well obviously you were, so what’s it supposed to mean?would’ve though war or prospect of war, but dunno
The Vietnam war was was in full swing.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do, you are exposed to a daily dose of hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories and misleading news. When it’s all mixed in with reliable information from honest sources, the truth can be very hard to discern.
More…
I’ve occasionally thought of setting up a newspaper that only publishes news guaranteed to be fake. There are a few a bit like that, but I think I could do better.
As for technology saving us from misinformation, I’d like to see it try. Start it off by programming in all the rules from Thoulass “Straight and crooked thinking” to detect logical fallacies. Add to that technology to remove emotive language. And add a sense of proportion to remove anything that is not news – stuff that occurs every day but is dressed up to look as if it’s exceptional. And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.
A bit more difficult, though, for technology to cope with malicious intent. That can be more subtle. Even getting technology to cope with blatant lies is not easy.
mollwollfumble said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do, you are exposed to a daily dose of hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories and misleading news. When it’s all mixed in with reliable information from honest sources, the truth can be very hard to discern.
More…
I’ve occasionally thought of setting up a newspaper that only publishes news guaranteed to be fake. There are a few a bit like that, but I think I could do better.
As for technology saving us from misinformation, I’d like to see it try. Start it off by programming in all the rules from Thoulass “Straight and crooked thinking” to detect logical fallacies. Add to that technology to remove emotive language. And add a sense of proportion to remove anything that is not news – stuff that occurs every day but is dressed up to look as if it’s exceptional. And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.
A bit more difficult, though, for technology to cope with malicious intent. That can be more subtle. Even getting technology to cope with blatant lies is not easy.
Fair comment.
mollwollfumble said:
I’ve occasionally thought of setting up a newspaper that only publishes news guaranteed to be fake. There are a few a bit like that, but I think I could do better.
If you set it up give me a yell, I will show you my CV.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do, you are exposed to a daily dose of hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories and misleading news. When it’s all mixed in with reliable information from honest sources, the truth can be very hard to discern.
More…
Find that twaddle on Facebook, did ya?
AwesomeO said:
mollwollfumble said:I’ve occasionally thought of setting up a newspaper that only publishes news guaranteed to be fake. There are a few a bit like that, but I think I could do better.
If you set it up give me a yell, I will show you my CV.
Noted.
AwesomeO said:
The infamous Curve factoids.
mollwollfumble said:I’ve occasionally thought of setting up a newspaper that only publishes news guaranteed to be fake. There are a few a bit like that, but I think I could do better.
If you set it up give me a yell, I will show you my CV.
mollwollfumble said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Misinformation on social media—can technology save us?If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do, you are exposed to a daily dose of hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories and misleading news. When it’s all mixed in with reliable information from honest sources, the truth can be very hard to discern.
More…
I’ve occasionally thought of setting up a newspaper that only publishes news guaranteed to be fake. There are a few a bit like that, but I think I could do better.
As for technology saving us from misinformation, I’d like to see it try. Start it off by programming in all the rules from Thoulass “Straight and crooked thinking” to detect logical fallacies. Add to that technology to remove emotive language. And add a sense of proportion to remove anything that is not news – stuff that occurs every day but is dressed up to look as if it’s exceptional. And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.
A bit more difficult, though, for technology to cope with malicious intent. That can be more subtle. Even getting technology to cope with blatant lies is not easy.
no jesters then, what’ll do about this repression i’m suffering
sorry, of this…
“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
idiocy though’s a jester’s specialty
transition said:
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
idiocy though’s a jester’s specialty
As ity may seem. ;)
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
… and your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick, as a brick.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
… and your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick, as a brick.
;) I really don’t mind, if you sit this one out.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
… and your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick, as a brick.
;) I really don’t mind, if you sit this one out.
Life’s a long song twededeedle tweede deedle to do to dum dum dum.
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
and dumb people even less.
ChrispenEvan said:
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
and dumb people even less.
they can still type though…
roughbarked said:
seems I’m a tweetodoodle short some where.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:… and your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick, as a brick.
;) I really don’t mind, if you sit this one out.
Life’s a long song twededeedle tweede deedle to do to dum dum dum.
ChrispenEvan said:
roughbarked said:
transition said:
sorry, of this…“And remove claims by idiots who are pretending to be experts.”
Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
and dumb people even less.
Stumpy_seahorse said:
ChrispenEvan said:
roughbarked said:Experts often have no idea how to determine idiocy.
and dumb people even less.
they can still type though…
it’s the old taking pride in being dumb, as if it is some badge of honour. don’t listen to experts as my opinion is just as valid.
ChrispenEvan said:
it’s the old taking pride in being dumb, as if it is some badge of honour. don’t listen to experts as my opinion is just as valid.
Not always. I believe what science tells me to the degree that there may still exist somethings I want to test further.
Sometimes this may also require the opinions of others as to whether the tests would be worthwhile or not.
Leroy-: They’ve shut the coal mine and the power station putting 3000 towns folk out of work.
They say don’t worry, they’ll replace the power station with a wind farm with components manufactured overseas that will employ 100 people.
Does that sound right to you Dave?
Dave-: Nope.
Leroy-: What are we going to do about it, Dave?
Dave-: Vote em out.
Peak Warming Man said:
Leroy-: They’ve shut the coal mine and the power station putting 3000 towns folk out of work.
They say don’t worry, they’ll replace the power station with a wind farm with components manufactured overseas that will employ 100 people.
Does that sound right to you Dave?Dave-: Nope.
Leroy-: What are we going to do about it, Dave?
Dave-: Vote em out.
This hearsay stuff takes too long.
Peak Warming Man said:
Leroy-: They’ve shut the coal mine and the power station putting 3000 towns folk out of work.
They say don’t worry, they’ll replace the power station with a wind farm with components manufactured overseas that will employ 100 people.
Does that sound right to you Dave?Dave-: Nope.
Leroy-: What are we going to do about it, Dave?
Dave-: Vote em out.
leroy-: Will that bring our jobs back?
Dave:- Don’t be fucking stupid Leroy, of course not. But we have to blame someone rather than take responsibility ourselves for not having the foresight to go with progress.
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Leroy-: They’ve shut the coal mine and the power station putting 3000 towns folk out of work.
They say don’t worry, they’ll replace the power station with a wind farm with components manufactured overseas that will employ 100 people.
Does that sound right to you Dave?Dave-: Nope.
Leroy-: What are we going to do about it, Dave?
Dave-: Vote em out.
leroy-: Will that bring our jobs back?
Dave:- Don’t be fucking stupid Leroy, of course not. But we have to blame someone rather than take responsibility ourselves for not having the foresight to go with progress.
Now they’re planning the crime of the century
Well what will it be?
Read all about their schemes and adventuring
Yes, It’s well worth the fee
So roll up and see
How they’ve raped the universe
How they’ve gone from bad to worse
Who are these men of lust, greed and glory?
Rip off the mask and let’s see.
But that’s not right – oh no, what’s the story?
But there’s you and there’s me
That can’t be right
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Leroy-: They’ve shut the coal mine and the power station putting 3000 towns folk out of work.
They say don’t worry, they’ll replace the power station with a wind farm with components manufactured overseas that will employ 100 people.
Does that sound right to you Dave?Dave-: Nope.
Leroy-: What are we going to do about it, Dave?
Dave-: Vote em out.
leroy-: Will that bring our jobs back?
Dave:- Don’t be fucking stupid Leroy, of course not. But we have to blame someone rather than take responsibility ourselves for not having the foresight to go with progress.
Leroy-: Yeah I guess you’re right Dave, I’d like to buy another round of drinks but I just cant afford it anymore since the progress.
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Leroy-: They’ve shut the coal mine and the power station putting 3000 towns folk out of work.
They say don’t worry, they’ll replace the power station with a wind farm with components manufactured overseas that will employ 100 people.
Does that sound right to you Dave?Dave-: Nope.
Leroy-: What are we going to do about it, Dave?
Dave-: Vote em out.
leroy-: Will that bring our jobs back?
Dave:- Don’t be fucking stupid Leroy, of course not. But we have to blame someone rather than take responsibility ourselves for not having the foresight to go with progress.
Leroy-: Yeah I guess you’re right Dave, I’d like to buy another round of drinks but I just cant afford it anymore since the progress.
Dave:- Well Leroy at least your kids have gone to Uni and have good jobs and aren’t working down the mines.
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said: