Know the Enemy

[TimiBoy]

On another thought, if the moon landing was faked, what difference does it make?

If it means nothing to you, that's fine.

The point is that some folks (one folk?) believe it was staged, whereas it quite obviously was a real event, enormously important in the context of Human exploration and growth as a Race, IMO.

The belief that it was faked, when presented in the context of an argument which has been vigorously presented by the "disbeliever" regarding the "reality" of human influenced climate change, provides a torpedo in the engine room for his argument, unless he presents a clear, succinct argument to back this statement.

Given no one has managed to prove it ever, I think he's retreated to the warm, dark atmosphere under his bed, because at least the hicks on Ausfish can't get him there!!!

It may even be possible that the Climate change Guru's who seem to think some of us need "reeducation" may back off and lick their wounds for a while, and give us some peace. Oh to be allowed to share my redneck hick opinions with my fellow fishers without being tackled with blah blah blah blah.

Or was that me? Damn whiskey again...

Cheers,

Tim

[Jeremy87]

For anyone wanting a good read on how Glowball Warming, anti-fishing and anti-smoking all tie together, this site is a great read:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=321&Itemid=1


I particularly urge the Jeremys on this site to take a read.

Which Jeremy are you referring to John_R. I initially assumed that there was a bit of sarcasm in your post but the vast majority of replies seem to regard it is convincing eveidence. All i got out of it was the opinion of a seriously p!ssed of bloke who seems to think that the government has an agenda to wreck everthing for everyone. I don't think I've actually stated an opinion yet on any of these topics other than stating that backing yourself up with newspaper articles or propeganda driven web sites is not a good way of expressing an opinion (I'm talking either side here both green groups and what ever you want to call conservative organisations). There seems seems to be alot of critiscism of pier reviewed scientific method. I'd like to hear someone on this site give an accurate description of what it actually is.

[bushbeachboy]

Fortunately I'm old enough to remember it, and it was a significant day.

And I completely agree with you Timi Boy, AXXX has made a goose of himself with that one statement. Any (small) amount of credibility he may have had before has completely disappeared.

AXXX if you're reading this, don't be totally discouraged about stating your beliefs in public. Quite a few of the people on here, including me, have said plain silly things in our younger days. Sometimes that's how you learn stuff.

If you're a true believer in your cause, you will have the guts to reply. Please make some sense, and put forward sensible debate about this issue. You might need to apologise to all us dumb redneck hicks for treating us with such disrespect, but that would be a small price to pay to get your message across a bit more. But only do it if you're serious. Don't waste our time otherwise.

[Lovey80]

[quote=Atriplex;877046]Well don't hold back then, he thinks you're an idiot; why don't you prove him wrong, me wrong, every single credible scientist, and most of the Australian public wrong.

Atriplex, I am neither for or against doing something about carbon emmissions, well I am as long as it is done responsibly. I Believe there has to be a better way of doing things and don't like to see that haze over our cities but as long as Australian's don't screw themselves over in the process. I have made comments on my position on this n the past to which I think you and I are "close" to being on the same page.

However I must severly protest to the "every single credible scientist" quote. What really pisses me off in todays age is that the only scientists to be considered "CREDIBLE" are the ones that tow the company "green" line. These are the facts of environmental science today and they can not be disputed. In particular are the marine scientists. It doesn't matter how much experience a marine scientist has or how credible anything he reports is as long as it is to the advantage of the Greens/EPA/AMCS he/she will get credibility/backing/funding and media airtime. While people with many more years experience and actual REAL science behind them get outcasted by thier own people.

Some need to put this in perpective, you can not argue the above paragraph because it is FACT. Or to put it like a scientist would. it isnt a theory it is LAW as far as science and pollitics work in this country.


My two cents

Cheers Chris

[Lovey80]

Oh by the way, as a side note I disagree with the authors stance on smoking. I am a smoker (one in hand as I type). i was originally discusted in the new smoking laws. However I am man enough to say that I was wrong! I find it much better having to go to my little congested smoking room during a night of drinking. I smoke far less and effect no one else but myself. Not too sure about smoking in the open air in public is quite the same thing..... your thoughts all?

Cheers Chris

[TimiBoy]

Oh by the way, as a side note I disagree with the authors stance on smoking. I am a smoker (one in hand as I type). i was originally discusted in the new smoking laws. However I am man enough to say that I was wrong! I find it much better having to go to my little congested smoking room during a night of drinking. I smoke far less and effect no one else but myself. Not too sure about smoking in the open air in public is quite the same thing..... your thoughts all?

Cheers Chris

Probably a worthy discussion in a new thread. I'll leave that up to you, Lovely!

Cheers,

Tim

[Atriplex]

[quote=Lovey80;877506]

Well don't hold back then, he thinks you're an idiot; why don't you prove him wrong, me wrong, every single credible scientist, and most of the Australian public wrong.

Atriplex, I am neither for or against doing something about carbon emmissions, well I am as long as it is done responsibly. I Believe there has to be a better way of doing things and don't like to see that haze over our cities but as long as Australian's don't screw themselves over in the process. I have made comments on my position on this n the past to which I think you and I are "close" to being on the same page.

However I must severly protest to the "every single credible scientist" quote. What really pisses me off in todays age is that the only scientists to be considered "CREDIBLE" are the ones that tow the company "green" line. These are the facts of environmental science today and they can not be disputed. In particular are the marine scientists. It doesn't matter how much experience a marine scientist has or how credible anything he reports is as long as it is to the advantage of the Greens/EPA/AMCS he/she will get credibility/backing/funding and media airtime. While people with many more years experience and actual REAL science behind them get outcasted by thier own people.

Some need to put this in perpective, you can not argue the above paragraph because it is FACT. Or to put it like a scientist would. it isnt a theory it is LAW as far as science and pollitics work in this country.


My two cents

Cheers Chris

An interesting point. To me; a credible scientist is someone who is willing to admit their theory is wrong. Scientists who are given grants by influential groups (oil companies, coal companies, cigarette companies, etc.) will not change their theory if the facts do not fit the theory.

A very famous scientist; whom, my good friend Aigusto quoted in another post; Albert Einstein once said: "if the facts don't fit the theory; change the facts."
If someone goes out, like Einstein did with his theory of relativity, and just looks for the facts that fit their theory then they cannot be considered credible. Because the conclusion that they reach will not be scientifically credible.

Well, that's my opinion anyway. Scientific organisations like NASA should not be trusted with the truth of Global Warming.

I often read The Australian at "MGS," believe it or not; I read it because it's interesting, and luckily I'm able to take most of their articles about the Environment with a grain of salt, because most of the time the argument that is presented is far inferior to the opposing argument.

In unrelated matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ax_accusations. Read that; and see what you think. Remember anyone can edit this information. If you're still 100% certain that the moon landing was authentic, please say so. As I would be interested to see you're well formulated, and articluate response, keeping in mind that it would be a good idea to talk about relevant things. BTW I'm not 100% that the moon landing was a hoax, but I'm always interested in the other side of the story. The article that I read, at school, about the moon landing proposed a very good argument. If I see it I shall enlighten youse.

P.S. The way you behaved in the other post TimiBoy (you didn't answer any of my questions (DUH!!) and you didn't formulate any sort of argument) I would say it's you who needs to regain a bit of credibility.

P.S.S. I was gone fishing just so you know :wink:.

EDIT: Just remembered that I'll be heading up to Moreton Bay in September. If you want to meet me, just let me know.

















I'm joking by the way

[PinHead]

Scientists are also given grants by Govts and when those Govts have a definite green leaning I wonder which way the scientists lean??

Once again, I notice a green supporter make a statement and then is challenged to put forward the evidence. The standard response is : you show your opposing evidence first. Watch all green activists, they all have the same MO.

[Tangles]

Atrip,

Your too much fun, I believe the quote i made was:

'Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts'

And you never answered my original query on your grand statement on the moon landing? except with a 'youse' prove it to me line as Pinhead noted,,

We are still waiting Atripper, hit me with the facts, not a 'youse' prove it to me response, surely for such an socially aware and enlightened person as you set yourself up to be, you can at least provide us mere mortals with a morsel of facts. And bear in mind that quote on facts???

Atripper its simple, like i said, if you cant state your facts then you cant be taken seriously, I think people here have given you a fair amount of rope to play out your arguments and fun.

PS, you cant escape the fact you made the statement, back it up for once.

[TimiBoy]

Ditto, Aigutso. AXXX, you are suffering a credibility drain. You started your arguments, and then have continued all the way from that point, by demanding we provide proof, while steadfastly refusing to provide same.

And then you hit us with the moon landing stuff, and now you suggest Wikipedia as a primary source. Well, every self respecting Conspiracy Theorist has an entry there, and it is all speculation and conjecture.

You have answered our request for evidence with a demand that we supply evidence first. You brought it up first, Mate, so put your money where your mouth is. You have failed to provide a clearly argued and factual account.

I'd suggest this is exactly where you sit on the environment, too, "Choosing your own facts"...

And regarding me answering questions, I would quote myself above. You have answered questions with questions, lambasted every suggestion from everyone about the presentation of views from the opposite side (which you have already discounted by stating that your views are supported by every reputable scientist" - your words).

It is now your responsibility to be presenting clear facts. Until I see you do so, I will waste no further time on you. Your problem is you fail to recognise that by aligning yourself with the Conspiracy Theorists on the Moon bit, you have dragged all your arguments down to that line. If the due diligence you use to establish your beliefs is measured by that benchmark, you are just not credible.

Tim

[bushbeachboy]

[quote=Atriplex;877900]

An interesting point. To me; a credible scientist is someone who is willing to admit their theory is wrong.

Why?

Scientists who are given grants by influential groups (oil companies, coal companies, cigarette companies, etc.) will not change their theory if the facts do not fit the theory.

And that is a theory according to whom?

A very famous scientist; whom, my good friend Aigusto quoted in another post; Albert Einstein once said: "if the facts don't fit the theory; change the facts."
If someone goes out, like Einstein did with his theory of relativity, and just looks for the facts that fit their theory then they cannot be considered credible. Because the conclusion that they reach will not be scientifically credible.

Has the Theory of Relativity been shown to be wrong? Who is more credible than Einstein?

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

The truth!!!!! It's all your opinion. Stop preaching to me, and start proving your arguments. At least reference your work!!!!!!

Scientific organisations like NASA should not be trusted with the truth of Global Warming.

If they are truly 'scientific' why not? Or is it because they are paid by the US Government? Do they have a political agenda? What about the demi-god Gore of the US Democratic Party? Would he have a political agenda? Maybe to try and discredit his political opposition? Perhaps payback to Bush?

I often read The Australian at "MGS," believe it or not; I read it because it's interesting, and luckily I'm able to take most of their articles about the Environment with a grain of salt, because most of the time the argument that is presented is far inferior to the opposing argument.

In unrelated matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ax_accusations. Read that; and see what you think. Remember anyone can edit this information. If you're still 100% certain that the moon landing was authentic, please say so. As I would be interested to see you're well formulated, and articluate response, keeping in mind that it would be a good idea to talk about relevant things. BTW I'm not 100% that the moon landing was a hoax, but I'm always interested in the other side of the story. The article that I read, at school, about the moon landing proposed a very good argument. If I see it I shall enlighten youse.

Interesting...when my wife was doing her management studies they specifically stated that Wikipedia was not to be used as a referencing source. Why would that be? Maybe because it can be edited by anyone? With any axe to grind? And the ability to put up whatever their argument is as fact, then use it against those who disagree with them? That would certainly be easier than actually researching with an open mind.

P.S.S. I was gone fishing just so you know :wink:.

Any photo's to prove it?

EDIT: Just remembered that I'll be heading up to Moreton Bay in September. If you want to meet me, just let me know.

How are you getting there? Not burning fossil fuels I hope......Big Al will be cross with you.

I'm joking by the way

Cheers

BBB

[Jeremy87]

Scientists are also given grants by Govts and when those Govts have a definite green leaning I wonder which way the scientists lean??

Once again, I notice a green supporter make a statement and then is challenged to put forward the evidence. The standard response is : you show your opposing evidence first. Watch all green activists, they all have the same MO.

Regardless of who funds the study you can relly on scientific method and pier reviewing to make sure any findings are scientifically sound. I can't help thinking that you regard scientists and green groups to be the same thing. It really isn't the case.

[PinHead]

Regardless of who funds the study you can relly on scientific method and pier reviewing to make sure any findings are scientifically sound. I can't help thinking that you regard scientists and green groups to be the same thing. It really isn't the case.

No Jeremy. I do not regard scinetists and green groups as the same thing at all.
I do have a problem with using those with a definite green leaning when making recommendatos that affect my lifestyle. eg Moreton Bay zonings.
Green seems to be the cathcry of the 21st Century...a pity I did not catch onto it sooner...could be making squillions by now with crap based on crap...just like the greens are doing now.

[Jeremy87]

No Jeremy. I do not regard scinetists and green groups as the same thing at all.
I do have a problem with using those with a definite green leaning when making recommendatos that affect my lifestyle. eg Moreton Bay zonings.
Green seems to be the cathcry of the 21st Century...a pity I did not catch onto it sooner...could be making squillions by now with crap based on crap...just like the greens are doing now.

Then why do you keep taking shots at scientist. Have a go at the green groups for a change. You keep calling on people to back up their statements with evidence, now its your turn. Find the evidence that proves fisheries aren't collapsing, climate patterns aren't shifting, fossil fuel supplies aren't depleting, human population is not exceeding the productivity of food, species aren't going extinct at elevated levels. I'm as open minded as they come but i only take heed from credible scientific sources. Come on i'm waiting to be convinced.

[PinHead]

how about you show me that all of the above is happening. The Green groups are the ones that want so many changes but where is all their irrefutable evidence. They are the ones getting paid grants etc to produce this evidence.