Nothing good can come from this....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
Last night I re-watched the original BLADE RUNNER. It is a dystopian view of a possible future that was released in 1982. It was set in 2019 with the "Replicants" being the enemy human / robot / killers built in 2016/2017. It is eerie to see how sick and black our future has actual become.

Technology is pushing into places that have no positive purpose (Voice Imitation Software / Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment).

NOTHING GOOD WILL COME FROM THIS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk&feature=youtu.be

Now just imagine someone hacking Donald Trumps twitter account and posting a video of an imitation of his voice and his face manipulated saying he is attacking another nation. Before this could be disproved, there could be mass hysteria.

This type so stuff fits into the "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" category. STUPID!
 

MyOhMy

Member (SA)
Jul 26, 2015
2,509
7
0
70
Sleaford, Lincolnshire, UK.
Spot on. I first saw this video a few months ago and it made me think of the awful consequences of any type of software being put to use by ne'er do wells, this includes governments. Gullible snowflakes on Farcebook/Tw@tter/YouTube/Whatever and the millions who blindly believe everything the MSM tell them via the ubiquitous TV set will never accept they can be/may be manipulated, influenced or unwittingly controlled. Sad but true.
 

im_alan_partridge

Member (SA)
Jul 21, 2010
2,976
1
38
London, England.
I have to agree, I don't like to think of myself as a techno-phobe but the acceleration rate of technology is mind blowing. And not always in a good way.

To quote Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Pak "you were so busy seeing if you could, you didn't stop to think if you should". or something like that.
 

JVC Floyd

Inactive (Delete)
May 6, 2009
7,322
419
83
54
Maryland USA.
I think the main goal of technology is to make people as lazy as they can possibly f****** be, the television has made people so f****** lazy and video games have made kids so f****** useless that the powers that invent these things sit around and reap the rewards while we just lose every f****** day. Just remember every time you go to a computer or a TV set it's just telling you to be lazy and buy something.
 

samovar

Member (SA)
Jun 7, 2014
320
113
43
Italy
Blade Runner is the screen adaptation of Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Dick is a great read, he anticipated our dystopic technological present. TV and cinema have literally sacked his books.

For instance: The Man in the High Castle (from which the TV series) imagines an alternate history where WWII was won by Germany and Japan.
The Minority Report, Next and Paycheck (out of which three known movies) deal with the notion that knowledge of the future destroys the present (Paycheck also with mass hysteria, as suggested by Chris at the beginning of this thread).
We can recall it for you wholesale (out of which Total Recall) portraits memory implants... and so on and so forth.

In all his stories, technology plays a bleak role. I was particularly impressed by The Simulacra, where the US president is an android and political decisions are actually taken by big corporations.

Dick was a visionary and a paranoiad, which explains why he is among the stars of modern conspiracy theories. I find these theories laughable because their main assumption is that a powerful minority shed a smoke screen over reality. Why so? To conceal that thay make huge profits at the expenses of the majority.

But a conspiracy should be secretive, shouldn't it? :-) At best, here we're talking of an open secret. So what's the need of pulling up conspiracy at all? It's under the sun! Only, most people are not impressed and do not care. Either because they are blinded by the consumeristic verb and don't see any risk (as MyOhMy and JCVFLoyd suggest), or because they think they can get away with it.

One cannot blame Dick for his posthumous fate. Instead I think he should be praised, since he made it clear that advancements in technology and their promises of well-being are not at all in the service of mankind.

The dangerous side effects of our techno-present are now reaching a critical point. Yet people who play the game of profit don't care a damn if in so doing they endanger the planet. By comparison, Luis XV's "after myself the flood" philosophy looks like the triumph of unselfishness.

In an age of images and global reach, that software is scary to say the least... :thumbsdown:
 

trippy1313

Member (SA)
Jul 16, 2013
2,108
89
48
37
Seattle-Tacoma, WA
Blade Runner was with Harrison Ford right? I've only seen it once, about two years ago. But I remember thinking, for how old the movie was, it seemed to be very relevant to was our present and near future might become.

Also, the movie Idocracy, and the Terminator movies to mind.
 

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
samovar said:
Blade Runner is the movie adaptation Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Dick is a great read, he anticipated our dystopic technological present. TV and cinema have literally sacked his books.

For instance: The Man in the High Castle (from which the TV series) imagines an alternate history where WWII was won by Germany and Japan.
The Minority Report, Next and Paycheck (out of which three known movies) deal with the notion that knowledge of the future destroys the present (Paycheck also with mass hysteria, as suggested by Chris at the beginning of this thread).
We can recall it for you wholesale (out of which Total Recall) portraits memory implants... and so on and so forth.

In all his stories, technology plays a bleak role. I was particularly impressed by The Simulacra, where the US president is an android and political decisions are actually taken by big corporations.

Dick was a visionary and a paranoiad, which explains why he is among the stars of modern conspiracy theories. I find these theories laughable because their main assumption is that a powerful minority shed a smoke screen over reality. Why so? To conceal that thay make huge profits at the expenses of the majority.

But a conspiracy should be secretive, shouldn't it? :-) At best, here we're talking of an open secret. So what's the need of pulling up conspiracy at all? It's under the sun! Only, most people are not impressed and do not care. Either because they are blinded by the consumeristic verb and don't see any risk (as MyOhMy and JCVFLoyd suggest), or because they think they can get away with it.

One cannot blame Dick for his posthumous fate. Instead I think he should be praised, since he made it clear that advancements in technology and their promises of well-being are not at all in the service of mankind.

The dangerous side effects of our techno-present are now reaching a critical point. Yet people who play the game of profit don't care a damn if in so doing they endanger the planet. By comparison, Luis XV's "after myself the flood" philosophy looks like the triumph of unselfishness.

In an age of images and global reach, that software is scary to say the least... :thumbsdown:
I didn't know all those movies and TV shows came from one mind. As brilliant as that work is and the amazing details created, when talking of the future, it's not hard to predict. For some stupid reason humanity is hell bent of destruction. Creating software like this is as reckless as slamming all DNA in a mixing machine to see if anything binds and scientists are doing just that as I type this.

As for Phillip Dick, his views are strikingly similar to Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, "Industry, Society and it's Future". If you take into consideration the time that it was written, 1995, you will quickly realize that, along with being a cold blooded murderer and a sociopath, he is also a living Nostradamus.

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries."

If Kaczynski wouldn't have been a murderer it's possible that he could have gotten his message out. But, instead, he silenced his predictions forever.

The world leaders are playing games like children playing in the sand. Trump, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping are all playing a nasty little game at the worst time in history.

Yesterday Trumps spokeswoman says he pulled out of the Paris accord because "It was a bad deal for American businesses"! F***K American Businesses! How about taking a pay cut at the top so our children can survives in the future? Absolutely disgraceful.

It's like watching this all over again....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08
 

restocat

Member (SA)
Apr 25, 2010
841
7
18
55
New Mexico, USA
Interesting comments in this thread.

However, I do not believe our children will all die (in a fiery explosion?) just because one global agreement wasn't signed by one country. Suggest: Turn off the news, read the accord, and find out for yourself if it was a bad deal.

AI will eventually take us all out anyway. :)
 

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
restocat said:
Interesting comments in this thread.

However, I do not believe our children will all die (in a fiery explosion?) just because one global agreement wasn't signed by one country. Suggest: Turn off the news, read the accord, and find out for yourself if it was a bad deal.

AI will eventually take us all out anyway. :)
Have you read the Paris agreement? Here it is in English. I have to stick with the "It doesn't fit our plan of greed for our corporations" before I will believe anything else, especially the news.

If you can stand historical jargon read Fred Pearce's With Speed and Violence , it's free to read right here.....It's also free of politics and religion, just facts and how we found those facts.
 

jimmyjimmy19702010

Member (SA)
May 5, 2012
3,578
26
38
Sunny Brisbane, Australia
Humans are too greedy, selfish and stupid to ever come close to 'solving' global warming. Sorry but it's true. :-(

And to think, despite all scientific knowledge gained by world class experts on the subject, we still have idiot politicians who still don't 'believe' !?

When all these old fart politicians are long dead and buried, our kids and their kids will be suffering the consequences........

Rant over :-)
 

samovar

Member (SA)
Jun 7, 2014
320
113
43
Italy
Food for thought in all posts. (On a minor note, let me suggest that Philip Dick was an almost solitary voice in his age. Do you remember? The "space age", full of optimism in the progressive fate of mankind. It's easy today to see the dark side of progress; not so much so in the 50s and 60s).

On the one hand, I myself dislike the catastrophist attitude; I instinctively tend to think positive. I also believe that the technological progress is inevitable. After all, it stems from the progress of knowledge.

On the other hand, that's precisely the point. Because of both the power of modern technology and its potentially misguided use, the risk to trespass boundaries from which there may be no comeback is enormous.

I think that on this point nobody can easily rely on his/her beliefs, personality, attitude, or on history and tradition. Better look for reliable information, as other have already pointed out.
 

MyOhMy

Member (SA)
Jul 26, 2015
2,509
7
0
70
Sleaford, Lincolnshire, UK.
jimmyjimmy19702010 said:
Humans are too greedy, selfish and stupid to ever come close to 'solving' global warming. Sorry but it's true. :-(

And to think, despite all scientific knowledge gained by world class experts on the subject, we still have idiot politicians who still don't 'believe' !?

When all these old fart politicians are long dead and buried, our kids and their kids will be suffering the consequences........

Rant over :-)
No personal reflection on your good self, I posted this previously on this thread:

"......the millions who blindly believe everything the MSM tell them via the ubiquitous TV set will never accept they can be/may be manipulated, influenced or unwittingly controlled."

When presented by one side of an argument only by controlled media, items such as linked below are commonly suppressed to advance one particular view only:

"31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax"
"A growing list of 31,487 U.S. scientists (and counting) has signed a petition strongly rejecting as unproven the hypothesis of man-made global warming or climate change. These signers include four NASA astronauts, at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists, 9,029 Ph.D.s and some of the nation’s top climatologists. Only U.S. scientists are included in this particular petition. Only relevant scientific fields are included."

It pays to consider both sides of an argument to be better informed. :yes:
 

JVC Floyd

Inactive (Delete)
May 6, 2009
7,322
419
83
54
Maryland USA.
Reminds me of a cartoon a saw where some motherfuckers from the future went back in time and found a stupid sumbitch frozen in a glacier holding a stop global warning picket sign.
 

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
I want to say, that I certainly didn't post this thread to get good people arguing. More than anything, it was posted so like minded individuals may say "Hey, that is interesting and I get it". not to start a fight or some lost debate.

There are plenty of places to find information. The last place I personally would ever look would be any major news outlet who sells commercial time as their main source of revenue, politicians mouth or corporations opinion.


MyOhMy said:
Humans are too greedy, selfish and stupid to ever come close to 'solving' global warming. Sorry but it's true. :-(

And to think, despite all scientific knowledge gained by world class experts on the subject, we still have idiot politicians who still don't 'believe' !?

When all these old fart politicians are long dead and buried, our kids and their kids will be suffering the consequences........

Rant over :-)
No personal reflection on your good self, I posted this previously on this thread:

"......the millions who blindly believe everything the MSM tell them via the ubiquitous TV set will never accept they can be/may be manipulated, influenced or unwittingly controlled."

When presented by one side of an argument only by controlled media, items such as linked below are commonly suppressed to advance one particular view only:

"31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax"
"A growing list of 31,487 U.S. scientists (and counting) has signed a petition strongly rejecting as unproven the hypothesis of man-made global warming or climate change. These signers include four NASA astronauts, at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists, 9,029 Ph.D.s and some of the nation’s top climatologists. Only U.S. scientists are included in this particular petition. Only relevant scientific fields are included."

It pays to consider both sides of an argument to be better informed. :yes:
Christine, that's a very interesting website. I just went and had a good long look at it, but aside from the big headline, there isn't any content. There is a link to a bunch of names, none explain who those people are or their qualifications, no links to further explain if they are actual people. There are no links to the NASA scientists mentioned, no links that even say which NASA scientists signed this, just a list of names. I clicked on every single link on that site and they are all dead ends, with nothing linked to information that backs up the headline "31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs" :-/

But you are right, it's important to consider both sides, but it's more important to find where that information is coming from.

Here is a personal experience I have had....

I have a good friend, I've have known since 1999. I met her while living in the mountains above Los Angeles in a private community called Pine Mountain Club. Here, we lived for 15 years on the back side of the highest mountain in Los Angeles county, Mount Pinos, (8847 feet). Her name is Zina Dean, she is 62 years old and is a California native seed expert. For the last 40 years she has been working with many companies on large infrastructure projects in the state of California. If a freeway interchange is built or a solar power plant is built, California law states that the land must be reseeded (for erosion purposes) with California native seed to protect indigenous plants and animals. Her and I used to hike together, every night at 5pm after work for years. I have had extensive conversations regarding her experience and the changes she has seen in the environment. She has gone in to detail relaying information from the yearly national industry conferences she goes to.

The interesting fact is, because of the changes they are seeing, they are having to change the way they do business. The types of seed they buy, the altitudes that these plants will now grow, the receding migration of plants and the pattern changes, based on information of the last 150 years from people that have logged data from farming and cultivation in the area since records have been taken. She is a wonderful woman, but dead serious when it comes to the work she does.

For her, this isn't about media information, or political motivation, this is her hands in the soil. If she makes the wrong purchases, she and her clients go out of business in a multi billion dollar a year industry.

I have had dinner many times over the years with many of her colleges, professionals at the highest level in their field. Their conclusion is, there is a change in their industry. There is a change in the way that they have to conduct business. There is a receding in plant species brought on by changing weather patters that have become permanent and to these people, global weather changes are very real.

My point is, I trust her word over some website that claims global warming is a hoax. Anyone can create a website, but when an entire industry is forced to change directions, there is something to be said.

I know I am long winded here....

Another example...

In the city of Ventura, California, where I moved from before coming to Italy, NRG's Mandalay Generating station and Ventura County publicly announced they were looking to spend $68.4 million dollars to move the one and only power plant that powers Ventura County from it's location on Oxnard Beach. Ventura publicly announced they want to move the station to higher ground due to " sea level rise caused by climate change" That's an awful lot of money to spend on something that isn't real.

Lastly, here is something in your neck of the woods Christine, here is a company that has invest huge amounts of resources into a product they hope someone buys. If they have no customers, then they are fools for making that investment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V4MmwWfLJA

My point to all this is....

A politician who represents a corporation with motives, a news agency that wants advertising clicks or a website with a fantastic headline created by someone to further their own agenda means little. There are real places to find the answers. Power stations don't get moved for the hell of it and a billion dollar a year seed industry doesn't just keep seeding like they did 100 years ago if they want to stay in business.

My sincere apologies if this post sounds aggressive, that's not how I wrote it or wanted it to be. These are just things that I see that help me gauge what is real and what is B.S.

BTW, I read the Paris Accord, I personally didn't see a reason to leave.
 

MyOhMy

Member (SA)
Jul 26, 2015
2,509
7
0
70
Sleaford, Lincolnshire, UK.
Your post is very interesting indeed, especially where you've mentioned your personal experience with your friend of the Pine Mountain Club. Personally, I think there is no denying that mankind's activities on the planet have had an effect on changes to the climate in some ways or other but, to what extent, seems to be the issue.

On a local level I still remember the London smog - and the subsequent increase in death rates - issues of the 1950's & 1960's in which commercial & domestic coal fires were a major contributor (also seen in areas of China today). More recently, there have been many reported cases of local flooding due to the increase of large areas of paved over gardens for vehicle parking resulting in rainfall not being absorbed into the ground but running off into a drainage system not designed for this. Down the line, floods occur because the drainage system cannot cope with the extra water. Cause and effect has been given too little consideration in the past. Historically, the Medieval Period in UK saw a decrease in annual temperatures for a few hundred years and this has been explained as a cycle of nature. In my lifetime I've been accustomed to the calls of Global Cooling, Global Warming and now 'Climate Change' (Global Warming per se having been discredited by many resulted in the subsequent calls of Climate Change). 'Climate Change' is inevitable, it's nature (or natural) but the real questions are based upon the degree or scale of the impact of mankind's activities and this is where the jury is out - as far as I can tell.

However, American Thinker has a short but interesting article as does Forbes (also HERE). There are many such articles online and arguments for either case can be made with sincerity and integrity by both sides but, going back to my original thoughts & words, consider both sides.

It wasn't my original intention to highlight one specific subject or area of contention but rather make the case for not being spoon-fed information by parties the may have an agenda - or otherwise.

Either way, good post, Lasonic. :yes: :thumbsup:
 

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
MyOhMy said:
Your post is very interesting indeed, especially where you've mentioned your personal experience with your friend of the Pine Mountain Club. Personally, I think there is no denying that mankind's activities on the planet have had an effect on changes to the climate in some ways or other but, to what extent, seems to be the issue.

On a local level I still remember the London smog - and the subsequent increase in death rates - issues of the 1950's & 1960's in which commercial & domestic coal fires were a major contributor (also seen in areas of China today). More recently, there have been many reported cases of local flooding due to the increase of large areas of paved over gardens for vehicle parking resulting in rainfall not being absorbed into the ground but running off into a drainage system not designed for this. Down the line, floods occur because the drainage system cannot cope with the extra water. Cause and effect has been given too little consideration in the past. Historically, the Medieval Period in UK saw a decrease in annual temperatures for a few hundred years and this has been explained as a cycle of nature. In my lifetime I've been accustomed to the calls of Global Cooling, Global Warming and now 'Climate Change' (Global Warming per se having been discredited by many resulted in the subsequent calls of Climate Change). 'Climate Change' is inevitable, it's nature (or natural) but the real questions are based upon the degree or scale of the impact of mankind's activities and this is where the jury is out - as far as I can tell.

However, American Thinker has a short but interesting article as does Forbes (also HERE). There are many such articles online and arguments for either case can be made with sincerity and integrity by both sides but, going back to my original thoughts & words, consider both sides.

It wasn't my original intention to highlight one specific subject or area of contention but rather make the case for not being spoon-fed information by parties the may have an agenda - or otherwise.

Either way, good post, Lasonic. :yes: :thumbsup:
That's really interesting you talk about pavement and drainage issues. I read a wild article last year out of Dallas talking about the same issues they were having, both with drainage / flooding and then the city being hotter on average in the summer due to all the black top surface area radiating in downtown.

I'll have a look at those American Thinker and Forbes stories. Thank for that.

There is no way for us (me) to arm chair quarterback the world. For me, I look at the entity talking and the motives they may have. Supply and demand and industry treads that are forced to make changes create a more compelling argument, over the president of some coal fired power plant.

If I am totally off base, if there is no such thing as global climate change, and all 147 counties that are currently signed up for the Paris Agreement are wrong and we spend the next 20 years or what ever it takes to switch over from gas powered cars, coal fired power plants, actually clean up the air, clean our drinking water and get the plastics out of the ocean....if all the turns out to be BULL SH*T then what have we lost? What have you lost? What have "I" actually lost? Oh I will miss the sound of a small block Chevy when the last one rolls off the line. That one will hurt. But what will it all have cost ME?

If....and I say "IF" we do nothing and "IF" everything science is screaming at us right now comes true, we lose everything. If we can honestly not give a rats ass about the future generations, even if it is 5 generations away, then we are sh*t people.

Seems utterly ridiculous to me...and why? Because it's hard? Because it will cost the corporate billionaires their life style? It will take money out of the hands of people who have more then they could ever spend even when they buy billion dollar yachts and million dollar cars and still never come close to running out? I should worry about what those people think?

I can't shed a tear for them....
 

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
MyOhMy said:
However, American Thinker has a short but interesting article as does Forbes (also HERE). There are many such articles online and arguments for either case can be made with sincerity and integrity by both sides but, going back to my original thoughts & words, consider both sides.
Thanks for posting these Christine, I read them both, their not very long. They are interesting, but hard to gauge. I couldn't tell which direction they were trying to push or if the writer was trying to stay middle lined for the larger audience.

The American Thinker is from Nov 2011, not sure if that matters. But it is almost 7 years old, and data tends to spoil quickly. But what I found to be interesting about both these is the that they both point to "The cost to the economy" as the reason to not react. The fact that it would cost big industry and the way we do business globally as a main deterrent to changing or acting.

But, this all is open to interpretation I suppose, it's what you want to see. That's what I see.
 

samovar

Member (SA)
Jun 7, 2014
320
113
43
Italy
MyOhMy said:
[...] It wasn't my original intention to highlight one specific subject or area of contention but rather make the case for not being spoon-fed information by parties the may have an agenda - or otherwise.

Either way, good post, Lasonic. :yes: :thumbsup:
Agree on all front :-) But then one should note that:

1) the Fairfax Free Citizen article was written by an activist of the Tea Party, and the news editor of the American Thinker, Ed Lasky, has an even stronger political agenda (in addition to the dubious reputation of being allergenic to facts but not to political assassination).

2) the Forbes articles date back to 2012 and 2013. The second ("Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis") is particularly misleading. One reader's comment clarifies why:

"If you read the study, you’ll find that the scientists polled are all members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta (APEGA). According to the study’s authors, 'The petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta…These professionals and their organizations are regulated by a single professional self-regulatory authority –APEGA.' Given that the vast majority of participants in the poll are directly employed not just by the petroleum industry, but by a sector of the industry involved in one of the dirtiest methods of petroleum extraction (tar sands), it doesn’t seem at all surprising that an inordinate number of them would doubt the danger of climate change, or feel that it’s unlikely to impact them personally. (Especially given the fact that Alberta is hardly at risk from rising sea levels.)"

I fully agree with the golden piece of advice given by another reader while suggesting to the journalist to "learn a little about the scientific literature and how it is used as a tool": "The consensus that matters is the one expressed in reviews in journals in relevant specialties within the literature, and it is rock-solid."
 

MyOhMy

Member (SA)
Jul 26, 2015
2,509
7
0
70
Sleaford, Lincolnshire, UK.
My own thoughts and concerns are very much in line with your own on this. What if there is scam angle or hidden agenda on the whole Climate Change issue? The super-rich will always find a way to increase their wealth at the expense of the less fortunate, some folk are wired or conditioned this way but, if the world will benefit from any steps we collectively take to ensure a better planet for future generations, then I think therein lies our responsibility. Nah, you're not off base.
 

Lasonic TRC-920

Moderator
Feb 16, 2010
14,125
82
48
55
Naples, Italy
MyOhMy said:
My own thoughts and concerns are very much in line with your own on this. What if there is scam angle or hidden agenda on the whole Climate Change issue? The super-rich will always find a way to increase their wealth at the expense of the less fortunate, some folk are wired or conditioned this way but, if the world will benefit from any steps we collectively take to ensure a better planet for future generations, then I think therein lies our responsibility. Nah, you're not off base.
Remember back, not that long ago, before 24 news, before the internet, the local or national news had a news desk that was NEWS. It wasn't opinion. It was merely the facts.

"The driver of the car lost control and went off the bridge". FACT, next story.

And when those people didn't get it right, they were called out. They were kept in line. Those days are long gone and with it went any chance of finding information on any given subject that doesn't have a hidden agenda behind it.


samovar said:
[...] It wasn't my original intention to highlight one specific subject or area of contention but rather make the case for not being spoon-fed information by parties the may have an agenda - or otherwise.

Either way, good post, Lasonic. :yes: :thumbsup:
Agree on all front :-) But then one should note that:

1) the Fairfax Free Citizen article was written by an activist of the Tea Party, and the news editor of the American Thinker, Ed Lasky, has an even stronger political agenda (in addition to the dubious reputation of being allergenic to facts but not to political assassination).

2) the Forbes articles date back to 2012 and 2013. The second ("Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis") is particularly misleading. One reader's comment clarifies why:

"If you read the study, you’ll find that the scientists polled are all members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta (APEGA). According to the study’s authors, 'The petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta…These professionals and their organizations are regulated by a single professional self-regulatory authority –APEGA.' Given that the vast majority of participants in the poll are directly employed not just by the petroleum industry, but by a sector of the industry involved in one of the dirtiest methods of petroleum extraction (tar sands), it doesn’t seem at all surprising that an inordinate number of them would doubt the danger of climate change, or feel that it’s unlikely to impact them personally. (Especially given the fact that Alberta is hardly at risk from rising sea levels.)"

I fully agree with the golden piece of advice given by another reader while suggesting to the journalist to "learn a little about the scientific literature and how it is used as a tool": "The consensus that matters is the one expressed in reviews in journals in relevant specialties within the literature, and it is rock-solid."
I didn't take the time to dig into the ownership of the Fairfax website, but kind of figured that to be the case.

The American Thinker (I love how this guy blankets everyone in America with the name of his website as if EVERYONE feels the same way he does) is certainly not a center of the road article. With many comments slamming "Obama".

With so many people chastised to one side or the other, is it even possible to get scientific information from these locations that isn't hard right or hard left?

And (IMO) if we are talking about Forbes or the Wall Street Journal I am looking at their target audience. Forbes is most certainly targeting wealthy businesses men and spoon feeding their readership the opinions they want to digest.

Again IMO, I think one of the most difficult things we all face is the fact that we can't carry on a knowledgeable conversation with each other because we don't "REALLY" know the facts ourselves. I have allot more time than the average person to read things like the Paris Agreement, but who does that? Who has time to read the latest climate change studies to see if the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta (APEGA) know what the hell they are even talking about?

All these news agencies quote these studies, do THEY even read them? My guess would be NO! Do the colleagues of the actual scientists who have made these claims read their fellow man's work? Or are they so wrapped up in their own tests and conclusions that they might skim through it and if questioned by Forbes as their "Resident Expert" they give a quick answer that is snipped into a quote that is snugly placed into an article that supports or slanders President _______ (fill in the blank).

Of all the horrible things this modern world has brought us, MISINFORMATION has to be the worst. Sensational headlines on Facebook, professional looking news channels on youtube, and fake petition websites that get passed around with a hidden agenda.

​This is all relatively new, what could possibly be next?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.